Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On the heel of the political upheaval, a national debate was held named “The Buck Stops Here”; on 3rd January 2017, the leader of the opposition party in Lok Sabha was arrested. In the above-mentioned national debate, Babul Supriyo (elected MP) was on the support of the ruling party at Centre and Mahua Moitra( now a Member of Parliament), supported the party in opposition. During the debate, when Mahua Moitra (the opposite party No.2) was opposing the Babul Supriyo (Petitioner) argument, the petitioner commented “Mohua, are you on Mohua?” As reported by Mahua Moitra, the stated comment was defamatory implying the intoxicating liquor called Mohua.
4th January 2017, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Mahua Moitra (opposite party No.2), hence the investigation of the case was initiated. After the investigation was completed the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under section 509 of IPC. The Chief Magistrate issued the arrest warrant after taking the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. Later the petitioner approached the High Court for revocation of the charge- sheet under section 482 of C.r.P.C.
The Arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel:
It was stated that for the purpose of forming the offence under section 506, there has to be the presence of mens-rea for disrespecting the modesty of the women. It might be argued that the petitioners’ comment during the live television show can trigger a controversy but per se the statement was not made with the intention to insult the modesty of the women (opposite party no.2). In addition, it was also stated that to prove it as offensive there has to be the criminality of action, and said action should be assigned to woman sex. Merely calling women is under the influence of liquor or intoxicated doesn't amount to insult her modesty. And also put forth that it was an unintentional slip of the tongue.
The Arguments submitted on behalf of the Mahua Mitra’s counsel:
The learned counsel stated that the anchor of the show immediately intervene with the petitioner and asked not to make personal comments. Moreover, it was also stated that from the perspective of the anchor the comment was derogatory and was only made to assassinate the lady's character. In addition, it was argued that the above comment made by the accused is capable of insulting the modesty of the women.
Court’s Observation:-
The court opined that after referring to the various precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it could be established that if the modesty of women is outraged or not; it could find out after answering the question "whether the act by the accused is capable of shocking the sense of decency of the woman." Within section 354 of IPC, the term "modesty" can be explained, while considering the sense of decency of the women.
The court referred to the decree of the apex court in cases of State Of Punjab vs Major Singh 1967 AIR 63, Ramkripal vs. State of M.P AIR 2007 SC 370, and Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 371. The court finally concluded:
“The penal code recognizes assault, criminal force, or insult of woman's modesty as an offence. When the essence of modesty has been described as the sex of a woman, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by no stretch of the imagination the definition can be widened to include an assault or insult on the qualities of goodness, sensitivity, gentleness, empathy, etc of a woman."
Accordingly, the court held that the charge in the under FIR did not communicate any cognizable offence under section 509 of the IPC and thus the charge-sheet was likely to be quashed.
Intentional Comment Passed By the Petitioner Was Derogatory :
The court noted that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 at that point in time were the elected representative of the people. They represent the general view of the country and put for its view as:-
"It is expected from a representative of the people that he must be courteous in his behaviour, dignified in his manners, and cautious about his words spoken by him. It is undisputed that in course of a political debate, the petitioner asked the opposite party No.2 as to whether she was intoxicated. The opposite party No.2 was at the relevant point of time an elected member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and National Spokesperson of a rival political party. She was not only a public figure but is a woman. If doubt is raised in the mind of people from the utterances made by the petitioner that the at the relevant point of time she was drunken and intoxicated, this would, of course, an act of imputation intending to harm the reputation of the opposite party No.2 and such deliberate utterance made by the petitioner was defamatory statement within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code."
The Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that such intentional comment passed by the petitioner was derogatory within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC and Mahua Moitra was at the liberty to take any action, according to law, before the appropriate forum.
86540
103860
630
114
59824