In a relief to senior IPS officer D. Roopa, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed a defamation case filed against her by H.N. Sathyanarayana Rao, a retired IPS officer, in connection with the contents of an official letter that she had written to him when he was in service.
She had, in her 2017 letter, referred to various irregularities at the Central prison in Bengaluru, and the speculation around allegations of corruption against Mr. Rao, who was then heading the Department of Prisons.
The High Court said that the defamation case cannot be continued as no prior sanction was neither sought nor granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to prosecute her for defamation under Section 499 of the Cr.P.C.
Also, the High Court held that the communication being purely official between the two people [Ms. Roopa and Mr. Rao when both were serving in the Department of Prisons] cannot be held to be defamatory as the contents would not attract provisions of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Ms. Roopa, who is presently serving as the Managing Director, Karnataka Handicrafts Development Corporation.
She had questioned the legality of the order passed by a metropolitan magistrate on October 22, 2019 taking cognisance of the offence against her, based on the complaint by Mr. Rao.
Case background
Ms, Roopa, who was then serving as Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons), had on July 12, 2017 written an official letter to Mr. Rao, who was then serving as the Director General and Inspector General of Police (Prisons).
The letter contained details of her observations during an inspection of the Central prison in Bengaluru, and several alleged illegalities and misconduct by jail staff.
The letter had referred to extra facilities provided illegally to V.K. Sasikala, who was then serving a sentence in a corruption case involving J. Jayalalithaa, a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Mr. Roopa had stated in the letter that Mr. Rao was apprised about the illegal facility provided to Ms. Saiskala, and there was ‘speculation’ that ₹2 crore was paid as bribe for continuation of such illegal facilities.
She had, in the letter, requested Mr. Rao to immediately look into these allegations and take disciplinary action against the officials concerned while pointing out that the allegations, ‘unfortunately’, were directed at him.
The gist of the contents of Mr. Roopa’s letter were publish in the print and visual media a day after she wrote the letter.
Subsequently, Mr. Rao, who retired from service on July 31, 2017, filed the defamation case alleging that false allegations against him in the letter and its publication in the media had impacted his reputation.
While agreeing with arguments of advocate Madhukar Deshpande, who represented Ms. Roopa, the High Court said that sanction for prosecution was mandatory as the letter would demonstrate ‘reasonable connection to the discharge of official duty of Ms. Roopa’.
The High Court declined to accept the contention of senior advocate Puttige R. Ramesh, who represented for Mr. Rao, that sanction was not needed as Ms. Roopa was not serving in the post of DIG (Prisons) when cognisance of offence was taken against her.
The contention of Mr. Rao’s advocate that Ms. Roopa had also sent the letter to both print and visual media, and hence a trial would offer an opportunity for her to come clean on these allegations, has been rejected by the High Court.
Citing judgments of the apex court, Justice Nagaprasanna said that no offence of defamation can be made out of such official communication.
“The factual happenings in the prison were highlighted, and what was being spoken about was only a caution. A pure official communication without it being referred to any other department or a quarter, cannot become the ingredient of Section 499 of the IPC,” the High Court observed.
