“What is the meaning to be attached to the words ‘making of an imputation’ and ‘publishing of an imputation’? This question has been set out with clarity in Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K., (2018) 1 SCC 615.

“The difference between ‘making’ of an imputation and ‘publishing’ the same is:

If ‘X’ tells ‘Y’ that ‘Y’ is a criminal — ‘X’ makes an imputation.

If ‘X’ tells ‘Z’ that ‘Y’ is a criminal — ‘X’ publishes the imputation.”

The essence of publication in the context of Section 499 is the communication of defamatory imputation to persons other than the persons against whom the imputation is made.

If defamatory matter is published, as to who published it is a question of fact. Whether there is publication indeed involves asking the question as to whether there was power and the right to remove any such matter. If despite such power, and also ability to remove the matter, if the person does not respond, it would amount to publication. The said principle would hold good to determine whether there is publication under Section 499. The further requirement, no doubt, is indispensable, i.e., it must contain imputations with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. There may be publication within the meaning of Section 499 even in the case of an internet operator, if having the power and the right and the ability to remove a matter, upon being called upon to do so, there is a refusal to do so.”

– Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Visakha Industries, [Criminal Appeal No. 1987 of 2014].

_____

It is true, every prosecution for defamation under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500, cannot be quashed on ground of offending allegations being withdrawn. However, we quash.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Hareshbhai Pranshankar, [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 846 of 2023] decided on 13.02.2024.

_____

The power of media in shaping public opinion is significant and press possesses ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed. As aptly stated by Bulwer-Lytton, “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, Jaideep Bose v. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, [Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2025] decided on 18.02.2025.

_____

Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (1970) 1 SCC 590 held, under the Ninth Exception to Section 499, if the imputation is made in good faith for protection of the person making it or for another person or for public good, it is not defamation. While truth is an essential ingredient of the First Exception, it is not so for the Ninth Exception [Kuruppanna Goundan v. Kuppuswami Mudaliar, 1935 MWN 365]. One test to decide whether a case falls within the Ninth Exception is, choice of words employed.

What strikes us is, there is no foul or intemperate language employed. There is no reference to expressions like ‘fraud, cheating, misappropriation’. In careful choice of words, mild and temperate language, certain issues perceived as grievances have been aired.

Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir, (2016) 15 SCC 525 held, holding a peaceful demonstration in order to air grievances, and to see voices are heard in relevant quarters, is a right. Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156 held, right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

We find, manner of protest resorted to was peaceful and orderly and no *Lakshman Rekha* was crossed.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Shahed Kamal v. M/s. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd., [Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2025] decided on 17.04.2025.