NEW DELHI: Protecting the interest of homebuyers, Supreme Court Thursday held that buyers staging a peaceful protest and holding banners at a public place against a realtor without using abusive language wouldn't amount to defamation, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.
Observing that right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and that every individual must respect the right of others to dissent, the court quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against some homebuyers for holdinga protest against a builder in Mumbai.
The case was lodged by the builder alleging that their action of holding banners against it amounts to defamation.
"Right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud," Justice K V Viswanathan, who penned the judgement on behalf of the bench also comprising a bench of Justice N Kotiswar Singh, said.
SC noted the grievance raised in banner was with regard to civic issues they were facing including not forming society, problems of water, poor lift maintenance, seepage, plumbing issues etc and they used the caption "we protest for our rights".
"At the outset, what strikes us is that there is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent. There is no reference to any expression like fraud, cheating, misappropriation etc. In mild language, certain issues, which the appellants perceived as their grievances have been aired," the court observed.
SC said that no case was made out for criminal defamation which depends on the choice of words used and to constitute the offence of defamation there should be imputation concerning any person with intent to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person.
"Language is the vehicle through which thoughts are conveyed. Had the appellants exceeded their privilege in erecting the banner? We do not think so. As set out earlier, all that the banner depicts is what they thought were their grievances against the respondent with whom they had a business relationship. The banner sets out that one of the issues was "ignoring grievances" implying thereby that there have been running issues between the two - something which is bound to occur in a builder-buyer relationship," the bench said.
Observing that right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and that every individual must respect the right of others to dissent, the court quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against some homebuyers for holdinga protest against a builder in Mumbai.
The case was lodged by the builder alleging that their action of holding banners against it amounts to defamation.
"Right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud," Justice K V Viswanathan, who penned the judgement on behalf of the bench also comprising a bench of Justice N Kotiswar Singh, said.
SC noted the grievance raised in banner was with regard to civic issues they were facing including not forming society, problems of water, poor lift maintenance, seepage, plumbing issues etc and they used the caption "we protest for our rights".
"At the outset, what strikes us is that there is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent. There is no reference to any expression like fraud, cheating, misappropriation etc. In mild language, certain issues, which the appellants perceived as their grievances have been aired," the court observed.
SC said that no case was made out for criminal defamation which depends on the choice of words used and to constitute the offence of defamation there should be imputation concerning any person with intent to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person.
"Language is the vehicle through which thoughts are conveyed. Had the appellants exceeded their privilege in erecting the banner? We do not think so. As set out earlier, all that the banner depicts is what they thought were their grievances against the respondent with whom they had a business relationship. The banner sets out that one of the issues was "ignoring grievances" implying thereby that there have been running issues between the two - something which is bound to occur in a builder-buyer relationship," the bench said.
You may also like
Nebraska plane crash horror kills multiple people as aircraft plunges out of sky into river
Delhi Mayor calls Mustafabad building collapse "Heartbreaking", orders probe and suspension of negligent officials
Best British car of all time named - it's not Aston Martin or Land Rover
Grok AI: Elon Musk's AI tool updated, will now remember old things too..
5.8 magnitude earthquake hits Afghanistan, tremors felt in Delhi-NCR
