The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings in a Chennai court on a criminal defamation complaint filed against DMDK founder and Leader of the Opposition in Tamil Nadu Assembly Vijayakant for comments alleging corruption in the State Milk and Diary Development Department.
A Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra granted interim stay on the criminal proceedings in Chennai until the Supreme Court decides on Mr. Vijayakant’s petition.
It issued a notice on Mr. Vijayakant’s petition, in which the City Public Prosecutor, Minister for Milk and Diary Development B.V. Ramanaa, Secretary, State Public Department, and the Union of India have been arrayed as parties. The matter would be taken up in six weeks’ time.
Mr. Vijayakant also challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (relating to criminal defamation), contending that these provisions violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression.
In his petition, Mr. Vijayakant contended that the defamation complaint was lodged without even looking into the content of the alleged defamatory statement published in a Tamil daily. He said the comments allegedly made by him classified as only a “fair criticism” made by the Opposition leader against the government in general regarding corruption in the department and not against Mr. Ramanaa in respect to his conduct in the discharge of his public functions.
It pointed out that a number of corrupt officials are facing criminal action and the probe is going on into the scam. He submitted that the provisions of criminal defamation were being misused to hush the voices of Opposition leaders like Mr. Vijayakant. This petition follows a similar plea by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who alleged that the Tamil Nadu government, at the instance of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, had resorted to filing hundreds of criminal cases against citizens, members of the public and more particularly members of the Press to suppress their free speech and muzzle dissent.
Dr. Swamy had described the defamation provisions in the IPC as “a throwback to an earlier repressive British regime.” In October last, the apex court had suspended defamation proceedings against him in five cases initiated by the State government.
