Giving relief to state Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed that the BJP leader Surat Singh Negi be summoned for defaming the minister.
The High Court ordered the parties to appear before the trial court on March 12.
Surat Singh Negi had alleged in a press conference that Revenue m3inister Jagat Singh Negi had not toured Kinnaur district more than 50 times during two years and had withdrawn Transport Allowance (TA) of Rs 12.54 lakh.
He further said that the Minister toured every district in his capacity as Vice President of Forest Corporation and had drawn the TA of Rs 2 lakh. He alleged that the Minister indulged in corruption.
Jagat Singh Negi filed a defamation complaint before a lower court but it dismissed it, stating that the opposition has a right to criticise the ruling party and that such criticism is essential for a vibrant democracy.
Aggrieved by the order, the Minister approached the high court. While partly allowing his criminal revision petition, Justice Rakesh Kainthla commented, “If any imputations of corruption are made against a person holding a high office, such a person has a right to approach the court under Section 500 of IPC (for defamation) besides suing for damages.”
The judgment in the case added, “In the present case, the statement made by the accused-respondent (Surat Singh Negi) that the petitioner (Jagat Singh Negi) had withdrawn the excess amount can amount to criticism of the public official and exposure of his acts. However, to call a person corrupt lowers his estimation in the eyes of the public and is per se defamatory.”
On the trial court order, the High Court said, “…the learned trial court fell in error while holding that the accused (Surat Singh Negi) was justified in calling the petitioner (Jagat Singh Negi) corrupt, such a right cannot be given to anyone as long as the offence of defamation exists in the statute books. Calling a person corrupt is per se defamatory as it tends to lower the estimation of the person in the eyes of the public and cannot be justified by resorting to Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”
It added, “The learned trial court was swayed by the promotion of healthy and vibrant democracy by the right of criticism. As already stated, there is a right to criticism but not a right to abuse and defame any person. Granting the right to abuse and defame a person will not make a democracy healthy and vibrant but will turn it into a mudslinging arena where the opposition and dissent will be crushed by abuses and slurs.”