Gauhati High Court refuses to quash defamation case filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma against Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia

The Gauhati High Court last week refused to quash the criminal defamation case filed by Assam Chief Minister Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma against Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia. [Manish Sisodia vs State of Assam and Anr.].Justice Kalyan Rai Surana determined that Sisodia was not able to make out a case for quashing and, therefore, dismissed the petition."...the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for quashing of the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 81/2022 under sections 499/500 IPC, which is pending for disposal before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thus, this petition fails and the same is dismissed," the Court stated..The Assam CM in his complaint has alleged that he was defamed by Sisodia at a press conference where, Sisodia made allegations of corruption against him. Later, a video of the same was uploaded on the YouTube channel of 'Aam Aadmi Party'.Sisodia in the press conference had alleged that the Assam government had given contracts to Biswa's wife’s firms and son’s business partner to supply Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits above market rates during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, when Sarma was the State's Health Minister..After the Assam CM filed a defamation case, Sisodia was summoned to appear in the proceedings. Sisodia then moved the High Court by way of the present plea challenging the same..Advocate AK Bhuyan for Sisodia contended that since he was a public servant, sanction has to be obtained as per section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prosecute him, which had not been done.Secondly, he contended that Sisodia's remarks fell within the exceptions contained in Section 499 of IPC as they were for public good.Thirdly, he said that the supply of PPE kits was made at the rate of ₹990 per kit, as opposed to ₹600 at which the government purchased similar kits. Further, he contended that even if the kits were given without raising bills, they took the benefit under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) fund and, therefore Sarma, through his wife's company unduly enriched himself. Lastly, he claimed that in the press conference, Sisodia merely reproduced material available on the internet through The Wire and The Cross Current and such reproduction could not amount to defamation..Public Prosecutor for Sarma contended that the defamatory statement was not an official act committed by Sisodia in exercise of his official duty as the conference was under the banner of Aam Aadmi Party.On Bhuyan's contention that the remarks fell within exceptions under Section 499 IPC, it was argued that Sisodia did not verify whether or not any payment was made to Sarma's wife's company for the supply of PPE kits.He then informed the court that although the company, like various other companies, was approached by the State government for supply of PPE kits, it was not interested in supply and hence, the supply orders were cancelled. However, under CSR fund, it supplied about 1,500 kits to NHM without raising any bills, and, therefore, there was no question of any payment being made, he said. Thus, he submitted that Sisodia had recklessly defamed the then Health Minister of Assam without any basis.Responding to Sisodia'a claim that he merely reproduced material available on the internet, he told the court that after articles by The Wire and The Cross Current, Sarma's wife had issued a clarification on twitter stating that as part of CSR activity of her company, she had donated 1500 PPE kits to NHM, Assam. It was contended that since Sisodia chose not to disclose this information, his action amounted to defamation..The Court found that Sisodia was unable to prove that he was performing the function of a public servant by holding the press conference under his party's banner and hence ruled that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not required.After examining the transcript of the press conference, the Court further concluded that Sisodia was unable to show that his statements were merely a reproduction of material available on the internet.It opined that if undeserving CSR benefit was available to any company, it was for the concerned authorities to add-back the amount and enforce requirement of law on CSR fund..In light of its findings, the Court ruled that no case was made out by Sisodia and, hence, refused to quash the complaint against him.[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.