Karnataka High Court quashes defamation case against BJP MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently quashed defamation proceedings against BJP Member of Parliament and Managing Director of Suvarna News Rajeev Chandrasekhar for airing news that allegedly portrayed advocates as "rowdies, vagabonds, scoundrels and goondas" [Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K Koteswar Rao]..Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be made out only for statements against a particular person or a definite group of people, and not an indefinite group or class of persons."Further airing of news with regard to Advocates being described as aforesaid would not amount to defamation as it is made against an indefinite class of people. It is neither made against the association nor a definite collection of persons," the order stated. It was also held that the principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences unless there is a provision for the same in the statute, which is not present in the IPC. .The case arose in 2012, when an accused politician was brought before a criminal court at Bangalore. At that point, a large number of advocates gathered around the Court and created a ruckus. This gathering was telecast on television and electronic media, including the Suvarna News 24x7 Kannada television channel, which Chandrasekhar was the Managing Director of. The telecast showed the gathering of advocates as "Breaking News", and allegedly compared them to hooligans, while portraying the community of advocates as "rowdies, vagabonds, scoundrels and goondas". .Following this telecast, a complaint of mass defamation was registered by one K Koteswar Rao, invoking Section 200 (examination of complainant before Magistrate) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a court at Bellary. On the complaint being registered, cognizance was taken under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC..Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Chandrasekhar before the High Court, argued that the complaint was not maintainable as his client was only a Managing Director of the company, and that neither the channel nor the company that owns the channel were made accused in the proceedings. Further, the procedure under Section 202 of the CrPC was not complied with as the complaint was registered at Bellary though Chandrasekhar is a resident of Bangalore, Nagesh added.Moreover, there cannot be mass defamation in criminal law as the complaint is not against Chandrasekhar, but against several others. The the complainant did not allege that he has been personally defamed, but that the community of advocates as a whole was defamed, the Senior Advocate contended..Appearing for the complainant, Senior Advocate SS Yadrami argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, there need not be application of mind. The procedure under Section 202 of CrPC cannot be pressed into service in every case, as the allegation was against several TV channels, and not only against Chandrasekhar.Regarding Section 204 (issue of process) of the CrPC, he argued that the order bears application of mind and existence of sufficient grounds. A complaint against defaming an entire community is maintainable, and as Chandrasekhar is Managing Director of the channel, he is vicariously liable for the offence of defamation, Yadrami further submitted..While considering whether the complaint was maintainable against Chandrasekhar without arraigning the company as an accused, the Court noted that under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, permission was granted to Asianet News Network Private Limited for uplink and downlink news to a current affairs TV channel, and not the Managing Director of the channel."The Managing Director is supposed to have control over the management of the television channel and its financial aspects; he cannot be seen to be directly concerned with the airing of the news items except when there are no materials to draw such conclusion that the Managing Director was also privy to the airing of the said news. The petitioner could not have been roped in for having committed the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC," the order stated.Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Bench observed that it is well-settled law that there cannot be vicarious liability in criminal law. Thus, Chandrasekhar could not be held vicariously liable for the acts committed by the news channel and its employees, it was held..On the point of whether issuance of process in this case was in violation of Section 202 CrPC, the Court took note of a 2006 amendment which provides that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence where an accused lives beyond his jurisdiction only after holding an inquiry into the case or after directing an investigation by a police officer.The Court came to the conclusion that since Chandrasekhar does not reside within the Magistrate's jurisdiction, the latter should have issued process only after holding an enquiry, which was not complied with. .Regarding the final point of consideration, the Court observed that the allegation was not of defaming a definite association, but an indefinite mass. Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the IPC specifies that an imputation concerning a company, an association, or collection of persons may amount to defamation. Therefore, the offence of defamation must be against a definite group of people and not an indefinite group. Airing news which refers to advocates as “Goondas, Hooligans, Scoundrels and Rowdies“ would not amount to defamation as it is made against an indefinite class of people, and not against an association or definite collection of persons, the Court held..Pertinently, the Court also referred to Section 199 of the CrPC, which states that prosecution for defamation under the IPC can be made only upon a complaint made by a “person aggrieved” of the offence."Some person aggrieved of the offence assumes significance as it would depict particular person or persons. A definite collection of persons is an expression which will not relate to huge mass of people, such a construction cannot be rendered to either Section 499 or Explanation-2 to Section 499," it was found..The Court also made a parting observation on the importance of the amendment to Section 202 of the CrPC, which makes it mandatory for magistrates to postpone issuance of process when the accused resides outside their jurisdiction."Despite it being mandatory to be followed, the learned Magistrates seldom follow it. Therefore, the learned Magistrates should bear in mind that when a complaint is presented in which the accused reside beyond their jurisdiction, an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. shall be followed.".While allowing the petition and quashing the defamation proceedings against Chandrasekhar, the Court also directed the Registry to circulate the order to all courts for compliance with the observations made in regard to Section 202 CrPC. .[Read Order]