New Delhi, Oct 29 A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed a revision plea filed by BJP MLA Karnail Singh against a magisterial court order that summoned him after taking cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by AAP leader Satyendar Jain.
Special Judge Ruby Neeraj Kumar said that a politician cannot claim protection under good faith if he makes “reckless allegations” without performing basic due diligence or inquiry.
The judge said that the magistrate's May order had “no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by the court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction”.
Jain has accused Singh of damaging his reputation by making a “defamatory” statement during a television interview on January 19 last year.
According to the complaint, Singh claimed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had recovered 37 kg of gold from Jain's home, and that the Aam Aadmi Party leader had 1,100 acres of land in his name, bought with wealth amassed from corruption and money laundering.
In its 32-page order, the court rejected Singh's argument that his remarks were based on information in the public domain, including ED proceedings, and were made in “good faith” and in “public interest”.
It said that Singh made the imputation against Jain while they were opponents contesting elections against each other and that Singh's position and status, along with the circumstances in which the imputations or specific factual allegations were made, necessitated a higher degree of care and caution on his part.
“A politician cannot claim protection under good faith if he makes reckless allegations without performing basic due diligence or inquiry.
“The revisionist (Singh) can neither escape the statutory duty cast upon him to conduct inquiry and exercise due care and caution before making actual allegations, nor can he shift the burden of verifying the veracity of the assertions made by him to the reporter,” the court said.
It said the question whether the alleged imputations were made in good faith or with malicious intent is a question of fact and can only be determined after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties as correctly observed by the magistrate.
“Further, the argument that political and public figures must have higher endurance for public opinion and criticism does not dispense with the requirement of exercising due care and caution before making specific factual imputations against another person,” the court said.
It also rejected Singh's argument that his comments were well within his right to speech and expression, underlining that even the fundamental right to express opinion is not unfettered and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
The court also refused to accept Singh's argument that one of the ED's tweets constituted the source of information on which the alleged imputation was based.
“I have gone through the tweet of the ED in question and bare perusal of the same shows that it talks about search being conducted at the premises of the complainant and others and seizure of cash amounting to Rs 2.85 crore and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from an unexplained source,” the judge said.
She said the tweet, nor any other media or news report placed on record, indicates the recovery of 37 kg of gold from Jain's possession or about him being the owner of 1,100 acres of land.
“The specific imputations made by the revisionist cannot be said to have been borne out of the contents of the tweet of the ED. The alleged imputation can not be regarded as mere reproduction or fair reiteration of the information contained in the said official source,” the judge said.
The court also said that at the summoning stage, the magistrate only has to conclude whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed, and is not required to conduct a mini trial.
It said Jain's witness, a resident of the constituency, had deposed that he believed the allegations after watching the interview and felt betrayed, which prima facie showed that Jain's reputation had been lowered.
The court clarified that its observations should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint.
Whether the statements were made in good faith will be decided at trial after evidence is led, it said.
