Title: Tejashwi Prasad Yadav Versus Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 846 OF 2023
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2024
CORAM: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Facts of the case:
The case at hand involves a complaint filed against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav by Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint is based on statements made by Yadav during a public speech on March 22, 2023, wherein he allegedly referred to Gujarati people as “thugs.” The petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar at the time of the complaint.
Yadav contends that his statement was made in the context of questioning the failure of authorities to bring back fugitives like Mehul Choksi to India, emphasizing his intention was not to defame Gujaratis but to criticize individuals involved in financial misconduct. He subsequently filed affidavits withdrawing the allegedly defamatory statements and clarifying the context in which they were made.
The proceedings were stayed by the Supreme Court on November 6, 2023, and the matter progressed to the Supreme Court as a transfer petition seeking to move the complaint from Ahmedabad to Delhi. Yadav argued that the statements were taken out of context and did not intend to defame the Gujarati people as a community. He sought to prevent any misunderstanding and asserted his respect for the Gujarati community, withdrawing the contentious parts of his statement.
In response, the respondent argued that the withdrawal was incomplete and insisted on the transfer of the entire case to Delhi. They emphasized that Yadav’s statement had caused harm and warranted accountability.
The case was thus brought before the Supreme Court to determine whether the complaint should be transferred from Ahmedabad to Delhi. The appellants challenged the allegations of defamation and sought to clarify the context of Yadav’s statements, aiming to demonstrate that they were not intended to disparage the Gujarati community. They also contested the completeness of the withdrawal of the contentious remarks and sought a fair assessment of the situation.
Laws Involved:
- Section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Issues framed by the court:
- Whether the petitioner can be made liable for defamation or not?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The court, in its analysis of the case presented before it, delved into several legal points to arrive at its final decision. Firstly, it noted that the petitioner had withdrawn the offending statements, which were the basis of the defamation complaint against him. Additionally, the petitioner clarified that he never intended to defame Gujaratis as a community and held them in high esteem, even citing the contribution of Gujarat to humanity through Mahatma Gandhi.
The court highlighted the significance of the petitioner’s withdrawal of statements and emphasized the context in which they were made. It acknowledged that while not all defamation prosecutions can be quashed solely on withdrawal of allegations, the peculiar circumstances of this case warranted special consideration.
Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the court recognized its authority to pass orders necessary for complete justice between the parties. It noted the hurt experienced by the respondent due to the petitioner’s remarks but also considered the petitioner’s explanation of the context and subsequent withdrawal of statements. In light of these factors, the court deemed it unjust to continue the prosecution, as it served no purpose.
Consequently, the court held that the case was fit for quashing the complaint. It proceeded to quash the criminal case pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, bearing no. CC/83849/2023. With the quashing of the complaint, the prayer for transfer became moot, leading to the disposal of the petition accordingly.
In summary, the court’s decision rested on the petitioner’s withdrawal of statements, coupled with the explanation of context and absence of malicious intent. It invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 to ensure justice in the case, ultimately leading to the quashing of the complaint and disposal of the petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
