In a setback to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s State unit, the High Court of Karnataka on Friday refused to quash a defamation case registered against the party, while declaring that an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, like the petitioner-party, could be arraigned as an accused in a defamation case.
“... The word ‘whoever’ inter alia employed in sections 499 & 500 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) implicitly includes an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, like the petitioner and such entities can be arraigned as accused in criminal proceedings of the kind,” the court held.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the BJP’s State unit questioning the cognisance of the offence of defamation taken against the party by the special court of magistrate for trial of cases against MPs/MLAs in 2022, on a complaint lodged by Rizwan Arshad, a Congress legislator.
Case filed in 2019
The case was registered by Mr. Arshad in 2019 when he was a Member of the Legislative Council, as the BJP had made a series of posts through social media handle by accusing him of allegedly indulging in election-related malpractices. The BJP and one Balaji Ashwin were arraigned as accused in the complaint.
By rejecting the BJP’s contention that the party could not be treated as a “person” within the meaning of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, the court agreed with contention raised on behalf Mr. Arshad that Section 11 of the IPC defines “person” in an inclusive way with the text: “The word ‘person’ includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.”
“... Even legal persons like governments, companies, deities, trade unions, can also have reputation. As a corollary of this, there can be a proceeding of the kind against such persons, as well...,” the court observed.
Reputation of parties
“A vibrant democracy like ours warrants a reasonable protection of reputation of political parties and elected representatives. Therefore, the tort or offence of defamation cannot be viewed leniently merely because punishment prescribed for the offence is not stringent. Excluding political parties from the purview of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC would deleteriously mask this perspective,” Justice Dixit observed.
On BJP’s claim that the intention on the posts could not be attributed to it, the court said that it was difficult to countenance such contention in view of the inclusive definition of “person” and there being a natural person as a co-accused in the defamation proceedings.
However, the High Court made it clear that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition and would not prejudice any contention of the parties in the defamation proceedings before the special court.
