A party may be accused in situations of defamation: Karnataka Health Care

The Karnataka High Court rejected the Bharatiya Janata Party’s argument that it is a political party and not a “person” to file a defamation lawsuit against it. It stated that in criminal defamation cases, entities such as political parties can be named as accused in addition to individuals.

Judge Krishna S. Dixit dismissed the petition filed by the BJP, which was represented at the time by Nalin Kumar Kateel. “I am of the considered opinion that the word ‘whoever’ inter alia employed in Sections 499 and 500 of IPC implicitly includes an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not like the petitioner herein and such entities can be arrayed as accused in criminal proceedings of the kind,” Dixit stated.

He has questioned Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad’s defamation lawsuit.

Based on a private complaint made by Rizwan, the BJP had gone the court, challenging the case that was pending before the Magistrate Court to hear charges against current and past MPs and MLAs in the city. He has used Section 499 read with Section 500 of the IPC in reference to BJP’s purportedly defamatory tweets against him in 2019.

Rizwan was accused by the BJP of being the mastermind of a ring that produced phony voter ID cards. The BJP argued that it is not a “person,” but rather a political organization. Since it is only a “society” or “association of persons,” the actions are unmaintainable since these entities do not fall within the definition of “whoever” used in both Sections.

However, the court ruled that, in contrast to private citizens, political parties and politicians must exhibit a higher level of tolerance since they voluntarily subject themselves to intense public scrutiny. It is undeniable that their reputation and image influence the voting process and its outcome.

A thriving democracy such as ours should rightfully defend the standing of political parties and elected officials. The fact that the penalty for defamation is not severe does not mean that the tort or offense of defamation should be treated lightly.

The court said that removing political parties from the scope of these Sections would negatively obscure this viewpoint, stressing that the conclusions reached here are limited to the resolution of this particular issue.