Right to Freedom

Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - (1)
All citizens shall have the right-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions [or co-operative societies] ;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; [and]
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India or]
[the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.]
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India or] public
order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub-clause.
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public
order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause.
(5) Nothing in s [ub-clauses (d) and (e)] of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from
making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the
rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general
public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular,

1
[nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,-

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any

profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by
the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.]

Indian Penal Code

Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone.]

CHAPTER XXI OF DEFAMATION

Section 499. Defamation. —Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such
person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1. —It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a
deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person
if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other
near relatives.
Explanation 2. —It may amount to defamation to make an imputation
concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3. —An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed
ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4. —No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless
that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the
moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that
person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that
person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome
state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Illustrations

2
(a) A says— “Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”; intending to cause it
to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall
within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be
believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of
the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be
believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of
the exceptions.

First Exception. —Imputation of truth which public good requires to be

made or published. —It is not defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should
be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of
fact.
Second Exception. —Public conduct of public servants. —It is not defamation
to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a
public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Third Exception. —Conduct of any person touching any public question. —

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting
the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever resepting Z's
conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a
meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or
joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a
particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which
the public is interested.

Fourth Exception. —Publication of reports of proceedings of courts. —It is not

defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court
of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Media trial

3
 Explanation. —A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in
open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the
meaning of the above section.

Fifth Exception. —Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and

others concerned. —It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion
whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been
decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a
party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such
person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustrations
(a)A says—“I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid
or dishonest.” A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as
the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct
as a witness, and no farther.
(b)But if A says— “I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to
be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the
opinion which express of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct
as a witness

Sixth Exception. —Merits of public performance. —It is not defamation to

express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance
which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the
character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance,
and no further.
Explanation. —A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the
public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such
submission to the judgment of the public.

Illustrations
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the
public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of
the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or
singing to the judgment of the public.

4
(d) A says of a book published by Z— “Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man.
Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind.” A is within the
exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he
expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and
no further.
(e) But if A says “I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he
is a weak man and a libertine.” A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the
opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's
book.

Seventh Exception. —Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful

authority over another. —It is not defamation in a person having over another
any authority, either conferred by law or 110 arising out of a lawful contract
made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that
other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Illustration
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court;
a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders, a
parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a
schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a
pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for
remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the
conduct of such cashier as such cashier- are within this exception.

Eighth Exception. —Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person.

—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person
to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the
subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the
conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of
Z, a child, to Z's father-A is within this exception.

Ninth Exception. —Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of

his or other's interests. —It is not defamation to make an imputation on the
character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for

5
the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person,
or for the public good.

Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business— “Sell nothing to Z
unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is
within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the
protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an
imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith,
and for the public good, A is within the exception

Tenth Exception. —Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed

or for public good. — It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to
one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the
good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that
person is interested, or for the public good

Section 500. Punishment for defamation. —Whoever defames another shall be

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.

Section 501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory. —Whoever prints

or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is
defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 502. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. —

Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing
defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Bailable, Compoundable and non-cognizable.

6
1. Please not You can file civil defamation as well as criminal
defamation. In civil defamation you have to show that due to
the defamatory remark or propaganda what loss you suffered
or for the compensation for the damage done to your
reputation.
2. In criminal defamation the prayer is for the imprisonment and
in the civil defamation the prayer is for compensation. This
also depends on the jurisdiction (pecuniary). Suppose in
Delhi where pecuniary limit is 20 lakhs for district court then
compensation asked above hat will be filed in in the High
Court (original side). You initiate the civil defamation case
only after paying the court fee. For the calculation of the court
fee I have shared an app in the WhatsApp group.

IN THE COURT OF LD CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No.                      of 201X

In the matter of:

XXXXXXXX  ……… Complainant
VERSUS
XXXXXXXX  ………….Accused
P. S.: XXXXXXXX 
INDEX
PAGE
S.NO PARTICULARS
NO
1.
Memo of Parties
2.
Complaint u/s 200 r/w section 190 Code of
Criminal Procedure against the aforesaid
accused for offences u/s 499, 500read with Sec

7
 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
above named accused persons.
3. Annexure-A

A copy of the CD containing defamatory recording

of debate show telecast on XXXXXXXX, as
available on Youtube by the caption titled as
“XXXXXXXX dated XXXXXXXX

4. Annexure-A1
Printout of the Screen shot of the relevant
portion
from the debate show telecast on XXXXXXXX,
as available on Youtube by the caption titled as
“XXXXXXXX” dated XXXXXXXX
5. Annexure- A2
The copy of the true and correct transcript of the
Defamatory Program, as prepared by the
Complainant.
6. Annexure-B
Certificate of 65B under Indian Evidence Act
7. Annexure-C
Print out of Meaning of word “XXXXXXXX”
available
On Internet, which defamatory word was used
for
the Complainant.
8. Annexure-C1
Print out of Meaning of word “Hooligan”
available on Internet, which defamatory word

8
 was used for the Complainant.
9. Annexure-D
Copy ofJudgment “Subramanian SwamyVs
Union of India 2016 (7) SCC 221”
10. Annexure-E
Copy of Judgment “SewakramSobhani Vs.
R.K. Karanjia1981 (3) SCC208 (Three
MemberBench)”
11. List of witnesses

12. Vakalatnama.

COMPLAINANT
Date: __.0.201    
Place: XXXXXXXX                                                 
Through:
Advocate

9
 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Complaint Case No.                      of 201X
In the matter of:
XXXXXXXX ……… Complainant
VERSUS
XXXXXXXX …………. Accused
P. S.: XXXXXXXX
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of:
XXXXXXXX (name and address)

… Complainant
Versus

XXXXXXXX (name and address) … Accused

COMPLAINANT
Date: __.04.201X       
Place: Delhi                                                  
Through:
Advocate

10
 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Complaint Case No.                      of 2017
In the matter of:
XXXXXXXX … Complainant
VERSUS
XXXXXXXX ………. Accused
P. S.:
XXXXXXXX

COMPLAINT U/S 200 R/W SECTION 190 CRPC AGAINST THE

AFORESAID ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES U/S 499, 500READ
WITH SEC 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AGAINST
THE ACCUSED PERSONS SEEKING PROSECUTION OF THE
ACCUSED PERSONS FOR DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY
HAVING COMMITTED THE OFFENCE AGAINST THE
COMPLAINANT.
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the present complaint is being filed and instituted by the above
named Complainant against the accused persons seeking prosecution and
conviction of the accused persons named above under Sections 500 of
Indian Penal Code for defaming the Complainant by making inherently
defamatory statements, which are clearly libelous on their face and cause
serious harm to the reputation of the Complainant by imputing behavior
incompatible with proper conduct and suggestions of involvement in
illegal activity. (first establish the stand of the complainant)
2. That the Complainant is a law-abiding citizen of India, and practicing
advocate with 15 years standing at the bar. The Complainant, XXXXXXXX,
is a legal practitioner of great reputation and has achieved reverence and
respect in the field of law. At the age of 40 years, the Complainant has
achieved the fame of being the most loved and admired member of the bar.
The Complainant is mostly admired by the members of the Bar for being
always available for them professionally and altruistically.

11
3. That only because of the reputation the Complainant, he has a vast Client
list. In this profession of Advocacy, the reputation and goodwill are the
most important aspect on which the profession of the concerned Advocate
is dependent. The Complainant for the past many years is working
honestly and with integrity for society, his clients and in furthermore of the
cause of justice.
4. That Accused No. 1 XXXXXXXX (erstwhile Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX
of XXXXXXXXCo Ltd, Accused No. 2) and in active connivance and
complete consent of Accused No 3 XXXXXXXX, started a false, vexatious,
malicious and defamatory campaign against the Complainant for
increasing its TRP and other vested interests, causing irreversible damage
and harm to the reputation of the Complainant.
5. That the Accused Persons in their impugned telecast, made defamatory
allegation against the Complainant thereby calling the Complainant a
“XXXXXXXX Lawyer” and “Hooligan”, with the sole motive to tarnish the
reputation of the complainant and to wreck vengeance against the
complainant with a view to destroy the career of the Complainant. A copy
of the CD containing recording of debate show telecast on XXXXXXXX,
asavailable on Youtube by the captiontitled as “XXXXXXXX” dated
XXXXXXXX is annexed as Annexure-A and the printout of screenshot of
the relevant portion is annexed as Annexure-A1.
The transcript of the defamatory program has been prepared by the
Complainant himself, which is a true and correct copy. Copy of said
transcript is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A2
Certificate of 65B under Indian Evidence Act for the proof of authenticity
of the above said video and the printout of the screenshot of relevant
portion in it is annexed herewith as Annexure-B.
6. That the statement of accused persons are neither bonafide nor made in
good faith, rather the statements of accused person were given with
malafide intention to lower the reputation of Complainant Mr XXXXXXXX,
as is apparent per se from the telecast itself.
7. These vexatious statements were made by the accused persons with a sole
motive to malign the image of the Complainant. The accused persons have,
in connivance and in furtherance of common intention of all, committed
the offence of defamation by making totally malicious, false, incorrect and
defamatory allegations/remarks against the Complainant on the following
cause of action which has arisen in favour of the Complainant

CAUSE OF ACTION

12
 The cause of action for filing the present complaint case arose when Sh
XXXXXXXX Accused No 1 (erstwhile Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of
Accused No 2 XXXXXXXX Company) in active connivance and complete
consent of Accused No 3 XXXXXXXX, Accused No 4 Sh XXXXXXXX, Accused
No 5 XXXXXXXX, a talk/debate show dated XXXXXXXX, which was telecast
on XXXXXXXX and further viral on Whatsapp and all over Internet. The same
is available on Youtube under the caption title as “XXXXXXXX”

In the said video dated XXXXXXXX, the Complainant has been referred to as
 XXXXXXXX LAWYER
 HOOLIGAN.
The above said false statements by the Accused No 1 Sh XXXXXXXX
(erstwhile Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of Accused No 2 XXXXXXXX
Company) in active connivance and complete consent of Accused No 3 Sh
XXXXXXXX, Accused No 4 Sh XXXXXXXX, Accused No 5 XXXXXXXX, which
have been viewed by entire Nation, through National Television, is
defamatory to the core. The allegation made in the above stated cause of
action is false and the same is explained herein below:

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS FALSIFIED

FROM THE FOLLOWING TRUE FACTS:
i. That the above statement being made by accused and published at the
instance of the accused persons, is false, totally malicious defamatory,
entirely vexatious and without any basis. The allegations made in the above
stated cause of action are false and the same.
ii. The allegations made at CAUSE OF ACTION, wherein the Complainant has
been referred to as following, is false for thereasons that:
 XXXXXXXXLawyer

 Hooligan

The allegations made by the accused persons are false for the following
reasons:
(a) That the Accused has made libelous statement, which is on the face of it
and per-se defamatory. The Complainant is an advocate by profession
for the past 15 years and he has an unblemished career, with no
allegation against the Complainant whatsoever. However, the accused
persons have referred to the Complainant as a “XXXXXXXX” and
“Hooligan”, which is per se defamatory and the accused has no cause
or reason to have made the said allegation.

13
(b) That the meaning of the word “XXXXXXXX” on the Internet is
illustrated as “XXXXXXXX”. The other meanings of the XXXXXXXX are
“Goon, Bully, Rowdy, Rufous, Shameless”. The print out of said
meaning available is hereby annexed as Annexure C.
(c) That the meaning of the word “HOOLIGAN” on the Internet is
illustrated as “A violent person who fights or causes damages in public
places”. The other meanings of the Hooligan are “A violent trouble
maker” or “Bullies, Thugs, Cruel, Brutal fellow”. The print out of said
meaning available is hereby annexed as Annexure C1.
(d) It is submitted that the word “XXXXXXXX” AND “HOOLIGAN” used
by the Accused 1, XXXXXXXX (Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of
Accused No 2 XXXXXXXX Company) in active connivance and
complete consent of Accused No 3 to Accused No 5, which word is not
only derogatory in nature, but without any basis and per se
defamatory, suggesting that the Complainant has no respect or dignity
and remain wholly servile and shamelessly endure insults and
disrespects.
(e) That by using the word “XXXXXXXX” and “Hooligan”, the Accused
conveys to the public that the Complainant is per se involved in
Criminal Activities and the Accused has gone to all extent to any how
tarnish the image and reputation of the Complainant. The Accused
have defamed the Complainant by calling him a XXXXXXXX and
Hooligan, thereby conveying something which has no connection with
reality. Moreover calling someone similar to a XXXXXXXX and
Hooliganis equivalent to destroying his career as no client would wish
to engage an advocate, who is involved in Criminal activityor who is
“XXXXXXXX” and “Hooligan”. Moreover the Complainant is an
advocate by profession, but by the said allegations, the clients have run
away and the bar no longer has respect for the Complainant.
The word XXXXXXXX and Hooliganas used by the Accused No
1 (Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of Accused No 2 XXXXXXXX
Company) immediately before the Complainant’s name had
lowered not only his image but lowered made his reputation in
the eyes of his Clients, Colleagues as well as in the eyes of the
society.
(f) That the Complainant is in severe mental agony and distressful
situation as the said malicious campaign has lowered the moral and
intellect reputation of the Complainant amongst its Clients and also the

14
 members of the Bar, who otherwise held him in high esteem and the
reputation of the complainant has also fallen amongst his colleagues
who have started looking of him with disdain and suspicion as he has
been portrayed by the Accused Persons as a rogue and assailant before
his colleagues. Pertinently, the associates and other members of the
bar have, since the defamatory telecast, started to distance themselves
from the Complainant by stating that if they are seen together with
the Complainant, then others will feel that they are also XXXXXXXX-
like. Hence, the defamatory telecast has adversely affected the entire
life of the Complainant.
The statements made by the Accused are inherently defamatory
statements, which are clearly libelous and cause serious harm to the
reputation of the Complainant. The intention to harm the reputation is
patent and, in any event, it is apparent that there exists both knowledge
and also reason to believe that the imputation would harm the
reputation of Complainant. The imputation, moreover, lowers the
Complainant in the estimation of other, which is utterly disgraceful.

iii. Freedom of speech does not permit abuse and want of regard to another’s
honor or reputation and the allegation made are clearly malicious and only
motivated with the intent and knowledge to malign the Complainant.
iv. The right to reputation is guaranteed under Article 21 and 19 of the
Constitution of India and the Complainant is entitled to preserve and
vindicate its reputation and there is no right in the accused persons to
tarnish the same in the manner accused persons have undertaken.
v. The Complainant submits that the imputations made are clearly with ulterior
motive and are motivated only by self-interest for wrecking private spite
and for personal gains, which requires deterrent action.
vi. It is submitted that it is obvious from the imputation made that criminal
defamation is clear at first sight and the same is apparent beyond
argument. Furthermore, it is also apparent considering the utter brazenness
of the allegation that the libel is serious enough for invocation of criminal
law. And considering that the accused are being highly educated and
occupying a position which requires both responsibility and discretion, the
need to impose the sanction of law to restrain such wanton abuse of the
right to free speech makes it imperative in public interest that criminal
proceedings be initiated against them.
vii. The said allegations made by the Accused persons are false and ex-facie
defamatory. Such allegation has caused immense loss of reputation of the

15
 Complaint in public at large and has dented the long-standing reputation of
the Complainant. It also amounts to spreading ill-will against the
Complainant.
viii. That the said insinuations, imputations, remarks and comments made and
published against the Complainant, are absolutely unwarranted, false and
baseless and cast serious aspersions on Complainant, thereby creating
doubts over the hard work, honesty and integrity of the Complainant,
besides causing huge damage to the name, reputation and goodwill
enjoyed by the Complainant.
ix. That all the above said insinuations and allegations, made by the accused
persons, have caused grave damage and harm to the reputation of the
Complainant, at the instance of the said allegations.
8. That the Complainant XXXXXXXX watched the same debate show telecast on
XXXXXXXX, as available on Youtube by the caption titles as “XXXXXXXX”
dated XXXXXXXXtelecast on XXXXXXXX in his Chamber No XXXXXXXX,
Patilala House, New Delhi-110001, and at that time one Advocate Sh
XXXXXXXX was also with the Complainant. The other Advocate watched
the same debate which was telecast on XXXXXXXX by the Accused person
which contained grave allegations against the Complainant.

After that, the other Advocate (Sh XXXXXXXX) confronted Sh.

XXXXXXXX, with the allegations made therein, on which it was told to
the said Sh XXXXXXXX that there is no shred of truth in the said
allegation.
Sh XXXXXXXX told the Complainant that he is not comfortable in
continuing his association with him, as he alleged to be involved in such
activities, also informing that if he is seen with the Complainant, then he
will also be considered as a XXXXXXXX and Hooligan.
Further, such imputations spread within the Bar and many other
Associates and Clients of the Complainant in the society believed the
statements to be true.
Upon the receipt of such queries / confrontation, it was a humiliating
situation for the Complainant, and the reputation, respect and goodwill
of the Complainant has been lowered in the eyes of said Sh XXXXXXXX,
other Advocates & Client, etc.

9. That in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances it can be

ascertained that the above accused persons have committed the offence, in
connivance with each other and in furtherance of all, and with the

16
 explanation given by the Complainant to the cause of action, it is evident
that the accused persons had made false statements just to defame the
Complainant. There are various other causes of actions in respect of which
the Complainant craves liberty to file separate complaint(s).

10. That the above-mentioned accused persons have made and caused the
publication of the false news and such imputation concerning the
Complainant intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm the reputation of the Complainant and
have thus defamed the Complainant. Such imputation has directly or
indirectly in the estimation of others, lowered the credit, goodwill, and
reputation of the Complainant.
11. That the aforesaid statements made and published at the behest of the
above-mentioned accused have badly lowered down and harmed the
image and reputation of the Complainant and have also damaged the
good fame for which the Complainant has suffered irreparable loss and
injury and have also caused great pain and distress besides mental
agony to the Complainant. The accused persons are therefore liable to be
prosecuted and punished for committing the offence of defamation.
12. The said allegations and claims have been made without the slightest
responsibility and concern for the truth. Nothing can be farther from the
truth than the whole line of defamatory and damaging allegations made
by the accused against the Complainant.
13. That the Complainant respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court
that the Complainant is the aggrieved person and has good fame and
reputation. The fame and reputation of the Complainant has been
lowered down due to the above-mentioned acts and omissions of the
accused persons.
14. That the acts and statement of the Accused person’s is not covered by
any of the exception’s u/s 499 IPC. The burden of proving that any act is
covered by the exceptions falls upon the Accused persons, which can
only be done at the stage of trial, and the Court shall presume absence of
it, as per Section 105 of Evidence Act.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Subramanian Swamy Vs Union
of India 2016 (7) SCC 221 has settled the law viz. Criminal
Defamation. W.r.t. the applicability of exceptions, the law laid down is
as follows:

⮚ Head Note R (Para No. 179)-Onus of proving truth of imputation

17
 and publication of imputation for public goods is on the accused.
⮚ Head Note S (Para No. 185) - Good faith & public good are questions
of fact and emphasis has been laid on making enquiry in good faith
and due care and attention for making the imputation.
⮚ Head Note ZB (Para No. 209) - Onus to prove applicability of any
exceptions is on person claiming to be covered by same.

The copy of the said judgment titled as Subramanian SwamyVs Union

of India 2016 (7) SCC 221 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
D.

16. Further reliance is placed upon: SewakramSobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia

1981(3) SCC 208 (Three Member Bench), is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure E wherein it has been held that journalists are in
no better position than any other person.
17. The Complainant offers below, specific arguments on the non-
applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860:

First Exception – It is not defamation to impute anything which is true

concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should
be made or published. Whether or not is for the public good is a question of
fact.

A. The Complainant respectfully submits that the first exception

relates to matters that are “true”. However, the allegation made is
patently false concerning the Complainant. Further, the
Complainant submits that there is no element of “public good”
underlying such report. As such, the Complainant respectfully
submits that the first exception is wholly inapplicable in relation to
the instant complaint.

Second Exception – It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his
public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in
that conduct, and no further.

B. The Complainant respectfully submits that he did not occupy the

position of a “public servant” at any point of time in his life.
Further, the news reports that are complained about in this
Complaint make no imputation that the Complainant held any

18
 “public office” or that he acted as a “public servant” at any point of
time. As such, the second exception is wholly inapplicable to the
instant complaint.

Third Exception – It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question,
and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct,
and no further.

C. The Complainant respectfully submits that, the news reports that

constitute adverse comment by the accused are not protected by
this exception. There are numerous grounds that deny such
protection. Accordingly, adopting the negative definition of “good
faith” as contained in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, “due
care” and “attention” are the essential requirements of any action
claimed to have been done in good faith. In this connection to
illustrate, the Complainant respectfully submits that the accused
would not find any reference to any declaration or proclamation by
the Complainant to the effect that he is a “XXXXXXXX” and
“HOOLIGAN” as he has no prior criminal record or criminal cases
pending against him. Because the Complainant asserts here that he
never did proclaim or declare to such effect, all the related adverse
comments by the accused fail to elicit protection from the third
exception to Section 499. Therefore, the Complainant reasonably
asserts that the third exception to Section 499 has no application to
the instant complaint.

Forth Exception – It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of

the proceedings of a court of Justices, or of the result of any such proceedings.

D. The same is not applicable or as there is no publication of any

record of court of Justice.

Fifth Exception – It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been
decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a
party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such
person, as far his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

E. The Complainant respectfully submits that the protection contained

in the fifth exception is wholly inapplicable to the impugned news

19
 reports in view of the fact that the opinion expressed by the accused
does not purport to touch the merits of a judicial matter that has
been decided by a Court of Law.

Sixth Exception – It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the
judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author as far as his
character appears in such performance, and no further.

F. The Complainant respectfully submits that the sixth exception has

no relevance whatsoever to the instant complaint.

Seventh Exception – It is not defamation in a person having over another any

authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with
that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in
matters to which such lawful authority relates.

G. The Complainant respectfully submits that the seventh exception to

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 has no application
howsoever to the instant complaint. None of the accused possess
any lawful authority over the Complainant, whether by operation
of law or by contract. Therefore, the protection under the seventh
exception to Section 499 has no application to the accused
howsoever.

Eighth Exception – It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation

against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person
with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

H. The Complainant respectfully submits that the news reports

impugned in the instant complaint are wholly in the nature of
salacious reporting concerning the Complainant and his affairs.
Further, they have no lawful authority over the Complainant. As
such, the eighth exception is wholly inapplicable to the instant
Complaint as such audience do not exercise any legal authority
over the Complainant.

Ninth Exception – It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character

of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the
protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for
the public good.

20
 I. Firstly the imputation are not made in good faith. Further the same
under no circumstance for the protection of the accused or any
other person or for public good. The Complainant respectfully
states that the impugned news report constitutes stories and
fabricated data by the accused and passing off the same as a true
state of events concerning the Complainant and his affairs. As such,
there is none amongst the general public that the accused have
sought to protect by fabricating stories or by inventing false fiction
concerning the Complainant. Further, public interest is always
harmed by the salacious nature of reporting adopted by the accused
in relation to the affairs of the Complainant. As such, the ninth
exception to Section 499 is wholly inapplicable to the instant
complaint.

Tenth Exception – It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to

one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the
good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that
person is interested, or for the public good.

J. The Complainant respectfully submits that the tenth exception is wholly

inapplicable to the instant complaint. There is no element of caution
that could be gauged in the defamatory telecast. As such, the “public
good” element is thoroughly absent in the same. The accused have
chosen to publish concerning the Complainant and his affairs. As such,
no part of the tenth exception to Section 499 is applicable to any part of
the salacious news reports impugned in the instant complaint.

18. That though Article 19 (a) of Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of

expression, which entails the freedom of press and publication but
Clause 2 of Article 19 lays down certain embargo providing that right to
freedom speech can be curtailed on ground of its being derogatory.
19. That the Complainant respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court
that the Complainant is the ‘aggrieved person’ and has good fame and
reputation. The fame and reputation of the Complainant has been
lowered down due to the above-mentioned acts and omissions of the
Accused Persons.
20. That the facts and circumstances stated herein above clearly reveal that
the accused people by words intended to be listen has made and at their
behest published imputation concerning the Complainant intending to
harm, knowingly that such imputation will harm, the reputation of the

21
 Complainant, have committed the offence of ‘Defamation’ as defined in
Section 499 IPC punishable u/s 500 IPC.
21. Thus, the above-mentioned accused persons have made false and
malicious statements and were acting in connivance and collusion with
each other, for causing harm, disrepute, damage and defamation of the
Complainant.
22. Further as all the accused persons were having well in their knowledge
that their said acts and omission are wrongful in nature still the accused
persons went ahead with their aforesaid modus operandi, thus the
accused persons committed the said offences, having a “Common
Intention” as contemplated u/s 34 IPC. The accused persons have
willfully and intentionally aided each other in their acts with respect to
the offences complained above and also by their omission and
commission abetted the offence complained within the meaning of
section 107 of IPC and hence each & every decision, policy or action is
taken only with the accused persons knowledge, deliberation,
instigation, connivance and consent. Hence, the accused persons have
also connived and conspired in the commission of the offence and are
equally liable for the punishment.
23. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the present
complaint as the Chamber of the Complainant is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, where the cause of action for filing the
present complaint has taken place, hence this Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint. Further
the video, made by Accused Persons, has been watched by the
Associates of the Complainant, including by Sh XXXXXXXX at the
above-mentioned Chamber No XXXXXXXX at Patiala House Court.
Further, the consequences of the aforesaid acts of defamation against the
Complainant have ensued within the jurisdiction of P.S. XXXXXXXX
which in turn is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, as the
defamatory video were watched by various persons, members of bar etc
within the said jurisdiction of P.S. XXXXXXXX and after watching the
aforesaid defamatory video containing defamatory statement, remarks
against the dignity and reputation of the Complainant were made by
various persons against the Complainant within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. Thus, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court; therefore, this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

22
 24. That the present complaint has been filed in most bonafide and legal
manner and in the interest of justice.

PRAYER:
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby taking cognizance upon
the present complaint and to summon, try and punish the accused
persons in accordance with law under Section 499/
500/501/34/107/109 of IPC.
AND
2. Pass any other order and directions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and in favour of the Complainant.

COMPLAINANT
Date: __.0X.201X          Through:
Place: Delhi                                    
      
Advocate

23
 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Complaint Case No.                      of 2017

In the matter of:

Sh XXXXXXXX ………  Complainant
VERSUS
1. XXXXXXXX ………. Accused

P. S.: XXXXXXXX

LIST OF WITNESSES

1. XXXXXXXX (Complainant herein)

2. Any other witness with the due permission of this Hon’ble
Court

COMPLAINANT

Date: .04.201X Through:

Place: Delhi                                                  

Advocate

24
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTERATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.

Complaint Case No.of 201X

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXXX … Complainant
VERSUS
XXXXXXXX& Ors ……. Accused
P.S: TilakMarg

AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 65B OF

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

I, XXXXXXXX, s/o Sh XXXXXXXX Chamber No. XXXX, Patiala

House Court, New Delhi-110001, aged about __ years, do solemnly affirm and
declare that:

1. That I am filling the present Affidavit under the consonance with section
65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. That the CD and the Printout of the Screenshot of the relevant portion in
video annexed with the complainant filed before this Hon’ble Court is true
and correct and has been reproduced in its correct and original form vide a
CD writer.
3. That the said CD is the debate show held by Accused No –1XXXXXXXX,

erstwhile Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of Accused No 2 XXXXXXXX

and Ors(accused persons in the present complaint), as is available at web
address:

http://www.youtube.com/ XXXXXXXX
The CD is downloaded by me personally and, then, the same was
written/copied on a blank CD with a help of a computer and CD
writer, also the printout of the Screen shot of the relevant portion in

25
 the debate show are taken by me personally from the video, which
is in its normal course, used only by me and said copying of the
footage on to the CD and the printout of screenshot was done by me
and I was present during the entire period of the copy being
prepared.
4. That I confirm that the content of the CD and the screenshot are identical
to the record available on the above-mentioned link of the said press
conference held by the Accused and no interpolation of any sort has been
done with or on it.
5. That accordingly I am making this present Affidavit to certify the
correctness and authenticity of the said CD and also of the screenshot of
the relevant portion of the original recording the debate show held by
Accused – XXXXXXXX,erstwhile Editor in Chief of XXXXXXXX of Accused

No 2 XXXXXXXX Company Ltd and Ors (accused persons in the

present complaint).
6. That the content of the present Affidavit are true and correct and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on the ____ day of the April 201X that the content of the
aforementioned affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

DEPONENT

26