Former Kerala Finance Minister Charged with Defamation: Sikkim HC Refuses to Quash Summons, Petition Dismissed [Read Order]

The Sikkim High Court has dismissed a plea by the former Kerala Finance Minister seeking to quash criminal defamation summons issued against him in connection with a controversial press statement made after a GST Council meeting held on December 19, 2019.

The former minister, Dr. T M Thomas Issac allegedly referred to Santiago Martin, the complainant, as a “lottery mafia,” prompting Martin to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Judicial Magistrate in East Sikkim.

JusticeMeenakshi Madan Rai noted that “Certainly, the official duties of a Minister is not to denigrate a person or his reputation for which the decision in Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Gurmej Kaur and Another and Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH vs. Nirmal Kishore Bharatiya and Another was relied on.”

The Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and issued summons to the Petitioner and others. Challenging the order, the Petitioner argued that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the offences cited, particularly as he had not printed or circulated any defamatory material nor conspired to do so.

He further argued that, as a former public servant discharging official duties, the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. applied, and prosecution could not be initiated without prior sanction. It was also claimed that the Magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., as the Petitioner resided outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The Court, however, rejected these contentions, holding that the requirements under Section 202 were met, as the Magistrate had examined the Complainant and two witnesses before the issuing process. It noted that inquiry under Section 202 does not demand detailed investigation but only sufficient steps to determine if a prima facie case exists.

The bench observed that the earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by co-accused had already been dismissed, and the Petitioner, having endorsed the arguments in that matter, could not maintain a second petition on similar grounds as it amounted to a review of the earlier order, which is impermissible under the Cr.P.C.

On the issue of sanction under Section 197, the high court held that such protection is not absolute and applies only if the alleged act was reasonably connected to official duties. In the present case, the alleged defamatory remark was not found to be within the official scope of duties.

The Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation as a legitimate restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution by stating the balance between free expression and the right to reputation, drawing on well-established legal precedents.

It stated that “Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right.”

​​The court observed that “Pertinently, it may be remarked that the judicial system in our country is an adversarial system and not inquisitorial, where the Magistrate would be expected to be actively involved in investigating into the matter personally for arriving at the truth. Under the present legal system followed, it suffices that the Magistrate has taken steps for examining the witnesses as held in Vijay Dhanuka (supra). Consequently, this argument advanced by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also cannot be countenanced.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed stating that the impugned Orders suffer from no deficiency and thereby warrant no interference.

Mr. A. Moulik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Prasad, Mr. Samso Hang Subba, Ms. Laxmi Khawas and Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocates appeared for the Petitioner and Mr. Kishore Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ms. Laxmi Chakraborty and Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Advocates appeared for the Respondent.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates