HC Rules: Parties face defamation proceedings for BJP social media posts
The complaint stemmed from alleged defamatory posts against Arshad by the Bharatiya Janata Party
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court recently declared that political parties could indeed face defamation proceedings while hearing a case in which the BJP argued that a political party being an ‘association of persons’ should not be subject to defamation laws.
This decision came during the hearing of a petition by the BJP challenging defamation proceedings initiated by Rizwan Arshad, the Congress MLA from Bengaluru’s Shivajinagar.
The complaint stemmed from alleged defamatory posts against Arshad by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
During the proceedings, the BJP’s counsel argued that the party, being an “association of persons,” should not be subject to defamation laws. The counsel also contended that the complaint lacked merit.
However, opposing counsel pointed out that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) broadly defines the term “person,” encompassing unincorporated bodies of individuals. They emphasized that detailed arguments could be presented during the trial, rather than in the preliminary stages.
Justice Krishna Dixit, presiding over the case, noted that even unincorporated bodies could be considered “persons” under Section 11 of the IPC. He explained that legal fictions, such as attributing personality to non-organic entities like companies and governments, were common for practical purposes.
Justice Dixit clarified that entities like governments and companies could indeed have reputations, thus making them eligible for defamation proceedings.
Addressing the specific allegations against Arshad, the bench highlighted the seriousness of the accusations, including the claims made about involvement in fabricating fake voter ID cards. Consequently, the tweets in question were deemed potentially defamatory.
The bench commended the lower court for handling the matter appropriately without conducting a “mini-trial” at the initial stage. Overall, the ruling underscores the court’s stance on the inclusivity of defamation laws and the importance of due process in such cases.
