O R D E R

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.02 of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

2. The respondent, herein, filed a private complaint under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the offence under Section 499 of the IPC, punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The crux of the complaint is that on 16.09.2023, the petitioner, during a public meeting held near Koliyanur Bazaar Street within the jurisdiction of Valavanur Police Station, delivered a speech before an audience of about 250 persons, through a public address system, containing allegedly derogatory and defamatory remarks against the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the said speech, the respondent, Public Prosecutor, Villupuram, filed the present complaint upon receiving sanction from the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms. No.114 dated 02.02.2024, issued under clause (a) of sub~section (4) of Section 199 of Cr.P.C., authorizing the Public Prosecutor to lodge a complaint in respect of the impugned speech.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) representing Tamil Nadu and an active member of the principal opposition party. As such, he has every right and duty, in a democratic set~up, to express dissent and highlight the shortcomings and failures of the ruling government. The right to criticize policies and actions of the Government and its representatives is a core tenet of a functional democracy. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s speech merely reflects criticism of governance and does not constitute defamation under Section 499 of IPC. The speech targeted perceived administrative inaction and inflationary trends and did not contain any per~se defamatory imputation against the State itself. That apart, the respondent, who filed the complaint, is not an eyewitness to the alleged speech and has relied solely on transcripts and media reports. The respondent’s dual role as both the complainant and a witness undermines the objectivity required for a proceeding under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., which demands strict scrutiny.

4. It was also contended that the complaint fails to distinguish the roles envisaged under Section 199(2) and Section 199(6) of Cr.P.C., and that the order taking cognizance is non~speaking, cryptic, and reflects non~application of judicial mind. It was further argued that in the absence of any direct and personal knowledge of the alleged defamatory statement by the complainant, the Court should not have proceeded to take cognizance.

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the speech delivered by the petitioner is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. In a democratic society, this right includes the freedom to express opinions, criticisms, and dissent against governmental actions or public figures occupying constitutional offices. It was argued that the right to dissent, express disapproval, and question the actions of the State or its leaders is not only constitutionally protected but is also essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy. The petitioner, being a Member of Parliament representing the principal opposition party, was exercising this constitutionally guaranteed right in a public forum. In support of this contention, he relied upon several judgments.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner made highly objectionable, false, and defamatory statements targeting the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu with the intent to tarnish their reputation in the eyes of the public. It is contended that the remarks made were not constructive criticism but deliberate, malicious, and defamatory in nature. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition, stating that the petitioner has an opportunity to defend his case during trial.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side carefully and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. The petitioner, apart from being a sitting Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, is a former Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and represents the principal opposition party in the State. It is well settled that in a democracy, the opposition plays a pivotal role in holding the ruling party accountable by pointing out policy lapses and administrative shortcomings. Criticism, however sharp, is not to be construed as defamatory unless it crosses the threshold laid down under Section 499 of IPC. The relevant portion of the petitioner-s speech is extracted below:

“அவன் தனது குடும்பத்தின் பணத்தை பிடுங்கி, தனது தலையை அறுத்து, தனது வீட்டில் இருக்கும் சாமான் களை அடமானம் வைத்து, இந்த டாஸ்மாகில் குடித்து அந்த வருமானத்தில் மட்டும் அவர்களுக்கு 50 ஆயிரம் கோடி ரூபாய் இந்த ஸ்டாலினுக்கு கிடைக்கிறது.

இன்றைக்கு மின்சார கட்டணம் என்ற பெயரில் இந்த அரசு ஊழியர்களின் பணத்தை கொள்ளையடித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.

இந்த மாறி மக்கள் முதல் அமைச்சரை வச்சிருந்தா நம்ம என்ன பண்றது? தானாகவும் புரிஞ்சிக்க வாய்ப்பில்லை. சொல்ல பேசவும் இல்லை. சுய புத்தியும் இல்லை. சொல்ல புத்தியும் கேட்கவும் இல்லை. எதுவும் கிடைக்காது.

இந்த அரசு செய்த சாதனை என்னன்னா? விலைவாசியை ஏற்றது. அனைத்து கட்டணங்களையும் உயர்த்தியது. மக்களை இன்றைக்கு அவதிக்குள்ளாக்கியது தான் ஸ்டாலினுடைய அரசினுடைய சாதனை. வேறு எந்த சாதனையும் இல்லை. எங்க பார்த்தாலும் கொலை. கொள்ளை. கற்பழிப்பு. கஞ்சா. அரிசி சோறு இருக்கிறதோ இல்லையோ. கஞ்சா இருக்குது இந்த நாட்டில்.

இது அதுவும் இல்லை மக்கள். களிமண்ணும் ஒன்னும் கிடைக்காது. எதுவும் கிடைக்காது.

இன்றைக்கு தமிழகம் சீரழிந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறது.

இப்போ அடிச்சு கொள்ளையடித்தால் அவன் ஆயிரம், இரண்டாயிரம் கொடுப்பான்.”

From the reading of the petitioner-s speech, it is evident that the statements primarily refers to the failures of the ruling dispensation in controlling inflation and in addressing the rising prices of essential commodities. The petitioner attributes these issues to administrative inefficiency and policy inaction. The criticism, albeit sharp in tone, is clearly political in nature and reflects the petitioner-s role as a member of the opposition in a democratic setup.  Though the language used may appear politically harsh or exaggerated, it is necessary to assess whether it amounts to defamation in law.

9. The Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy (Privacy~9J.) v. Union of India, reported in, (2017) 10 SCC 1, observed that the right to dissent is an essential part of the constitution. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“266….Our Constitution places the individual at the forefront of its focus, guaranteeing civil and political rights in Part III and embodying an aspiration for achieving socio~economic rights in Part IV. The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well~being has been utilized through history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights. Above all, it must be realized that it is the right to question, the right to scrutinize and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinize the actions of the Government. Those who are governed are entitled to question those who govern, about the discharge of their constitutional duties including in the provision of socio~economic welfare benefits. The power to scrutinize and to reason enables the citizens of a democratic polity to make informed decisions on basic issues which govern their rights. The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio~economic rights has been urged in the past and has been categorically rejected in the course of constitutional adjudication by this Court.”

10. Further, the Hon-ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in, (2023) 4 SCC 1, has observed that:
“The right to dissent, disagree and adopt varying and Individualistic points of view inheres in every citizen of this Country. In fact, the right to dissent is the essence of a vibrant democracy, for it is only when there is dissent that different ideas would emerge which may be of help or assist the Government to improve or innovate upon its policies so that its governance would have a positive effect on the people of the country which would ultimately lead to stability, peace and development which are concomitants of good governance.“

Thus it is evident that the right to dissent is fundamental to a vibrant democracy and that differing views must be constitutionally protected. Applying these judgments to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statements made by the petitioner do not amount to per se defamation under Section 499 of IPC, particularly when viewed in the light of permissible democratic dissent. The impugned speech, though critical, appears to be an expression of dissatisfaction with public policies and administrative inaction, and not a targeted personal attack on the Hon’ble Chief Minister or the State with malicious intent.

11. That apart, it is pertinent to note that this Court, in Crl.O.P. No. 21166 of 2024, by order dated 22.11.2024, had already set aside the earlier order of cognizance passed by the Trial Court for being devoid of reasons and remanded the matter with a direction to apply judicial mind afresh. Even upon such remand, the order taking cognizance does not reflect proper consideration of the legal requirements under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., and the distinction between criticism of governmental functioning and defamation against the State has not been adequately addressed. In the regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., reported in, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 641, which reads as under:

“Recording the complainant-s statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant-s statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty~bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. After considering the complaint, the documents produced along with the complaint, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the learned Magistrate has to issue a process in terms of sub~Section (1) of Section 204 of the CrPC. The corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 227. Setting criminal law in motion is a serious matter. The accused faces serious consequences in the sense that he has to defend himself in the trial.

12. Moreover, the respondent, who filed the complaint, admittedly was not present at the place of the alleged occurrence and has not furnished the statement of any eyewitnesses. The reliance on transcripts and media reports, without independent verification or sworn statements from persons who heard the speech, renders the prosecution unsustainable.

13. In view of the above circumstances and in the light of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (supra) and Kaushal Kishore (supra), this Court finds that the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 499 of IPC are not prima facie made out as against the petitioner. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and cause unwarranted hardship.

14. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.02 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, is hereby quashed as against the petitioner. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.