Kerala High Court: In a petition filed by Sebastian Paul, former MP and lawyer-cum-journalist, for quashing defamation proceedings pending against him due to a speech he made about lawyers in 2016, the Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J. held that Sebastian, who is a lawyer himself, did not denigrate the entire lawyer community but instead criticized certain lawyers who were behaving violently in their dispute with journalists. Holding this, the Court quashed the proceedings.
Background
On 20-10-2016, Sebastian made a speech at a gathering of journalists in Kozhikode where he allegedly denigrated the lawyer community by comparing them with street dogs. This speech was published and telecasted by the print and visual media as well. The complainant, a practicing lawyer, filed a complaint against Sebastian under Sections , , and of the (‘IPC’).
Issues and Analysis
1. Whether the lawyer community, which Sebastian referred to in his controversial speech, be termed as an association or collection of persons as envisaged under Explanation 2 of Section ?
After perusing the complaint, the Court noted that Sebastian did not refer to the entire lawyer community while making the alleged disparaging remarks in the controversial speech. Instead, he mentioned the violent behaviour displayed by a group of lawyers who were involved in the fight with journalists. The Court noted that Sebastian himself is a lawyer with practice in various courts including this Court. Thus, the Court held that the controversial remarks made by him cannot be said to be intended to denigrate the entire lawyer community.
2. Whether the complainant could be considered as a person aggrieved by the offence which is said to have been committed by Sebastian by making a speech derogatory to the lawyer community?
The Court held that it cannot be said that the remarks had caused harm to the reputation of the complainant as a member of the lawyer community. Thus, the complainant is not a ‘person aggrieved by the offence’ under Section of the (‘CrPC’).
The Court also placed reliance on the similar case of Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. Deepak J.M., , wherein it was held that the collection of persons against whom the petitioner made the controversial remark cannot be called an identifiable body making it impossible to definitively say that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. It was also held that the complainant, who was a practicing lawyer, cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section when the group which he is allegedly representing, cannot be brought within the category of ‘class of persons’ within the meaning of Explanation 2 of Section . Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against Sebastian.
[Sebastian Paul v. P.R. Ashokan, Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1280 of 2020, decided on 11-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocates Varada Surendran and Deepak Mohan
For the respondent: Advocate V.T. Madhavanunni, Advocate V.A. Satheesh, and Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .