MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI versus MANISH SISODIA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 17-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
v.
MANISH SISODIA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2022)
OCTOBER 17, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
ss. 199(2), 199(4) & 199(6) – Prosecution for defamation –
Complaint u/s. 200 CrP.C. filed by respondent-Deputy Chief Minister
of Delhi against six individuals alleging commission of the offences
u/s. 499 and 500 r/w. ss. 34 and 35 IPC – Allegation that the accused
no.1-appellant held a press conference making false and defamatory
statements as though the respondent was involved in corruption to
the tune of Rs. 2000 crores, in the matter of award of contracts for
building classrooms in Delhi Government Schools; that accused
no. 2 to 4 shared platform with the accused no.1 during the press
conference; and that accused no.5 and 6 tweeted defamatory
contents against the respondent – Issuance of summons by ACMM
to all accused holding that there exists sufficient grounds to proceed
against the accused 1 to 4 u/s. 500/34 IPC and against 5 and 6 u/
s.500 IPC – Challenged to, by accused no.1 and 5 by filing petition
u/s. 482 – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held:Plea
raised by both the accused that the court ought not to have
entertained a private complaint u/s. 200 CrPC especially from a
person covered by s. 199(2) without following the procedure
prescribed in sub-section (4) of Section 199 is rejected – A person
falling under the category of persons mentioned in sub section (2)
of s. 199 can either take the route specified in sub-section (4) or (6)
of s. 199 – Sub-section (6) does not contain any conditions subject
to which the right thereunder can be exercised – Special procedure
was in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public
servant always had as an individual – He never lost his right merely
because he became a public servant and merely because the
allegations related to official discharge of his duties – Furthermore,
whenever a person is prosecuted by a public servant in his individual
capacity before a Magistrate by virtue of s.199(6), the accused can
   [2022] 19 S.C.R. 820
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
always fall back upon s.250, for claiming compensation on the
ground that the accusation was made without reasonable cause – s.
237 cannot be used as a crutch to support the argument revolving
around ss. 199(2) and 199(4) – As regards, accused no. 5, the
statement contained in tweets made by him cannot be said to be
defamatory within the meaning of s. 499 – Defamatory statement
should be specific and not very vague and general – Essential
ingredient of s. 499 is that the imputation made by the accused
should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against
whom the imputation is made – Statements contained in his tweets
cannot be said to be defamatory, thus, order of summoning passed
by the ACMM insofar as A5, is set aside – ss. 237 and 250 – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss. 499, 500 and 35.
ss. 199(2), 199(4) and 199(6) – Legislative history – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. To say that the provisions of sub section (6) of
Section 199 CrPC can be invoked by the individual public servant,
only in cases where the State Government does not go to his
rescue, could violate the plain language of sub-section (6). Sub
section (6) of Section 199 begins with the words “nothing in this
section shall affect the right of the person against whom the
offence is alleged to have been committed”. Sub-section (6) does
not contain any conditions subject to which the right thereunder
can be exercised. The non obstante clause in sub-section (2) of
Section 199 will also not go to the rescue of the appellants, as the
said clause also stands eclipsed by the words “nothing in this
section” appearing in sub-section (6). The word “nothing”
appearing in sub-section (6) will include the non obstante clause
in sub-section (1) also. [Para 45, 46][843-D-F]
1.2 The long history of the evolution of the legislation
relating to prosecution for the offence of defamation of public
servants shows that the special procedure introduced in 1955
and finetuned in 1964 and overhauled in 1973 was in addition to
and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had
as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he
became a public servant and merely because the allegations
related to official discharge of his duties. Sub-section (6) of Section
MANOJ KUMAR TIW
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.