Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: In the garb of dissent being the essence of democracy, the speeches should not malign the character of any person, unless it is borne out by facts, the Karnataka high court has observed in a recent judgement.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while dismissing the petition filed by V Sunil Kumar, BJP MLA from Karkala constituency.
Sunil Kumar challenged the proceedings in a defamation case registered by Srirama Sene leader Pramod Muthalik. During the Assembly elections in 2023, Pramod Muthalik had contested from Karkala constituency as an independent candidate.
The results were announced on May 13, 2023 and the next day at a victory rally organised at Bandimutt bus stand in Karkala, Sunil Kumar made certain allegations against Muthalik alleging that the latter had a role in the killings of Hindus in the name of Tiger Gang only for money and several accused are still in Kalaburagi prison.
He had further said that Muthalik was a ‘Deal Master’ and a Congress ‘B’ team member.
Muthalik filed a defamation case before the special court for cases involving MPs/MLAs in Bengaluru, contending that the allegations were not only untrue, but also dented his reputation built over a period of 40 years.
He claimed that neither he is associated with any Tiger Gang, referred to by Sunil Kumar, nor has been jailed for any murder.
The counsel for Sunil Kumar argued that during election rallies the contesting candidates should become deaf to such statements or become thick skinned and that they should not get touchy about the statements made during election rallies.
It was also submitted that even Muthalik had made several statements and Sunil Kumar had just ignored all of them on the ground that they were made during an election rally.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that if the content of the speech is considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is a matter for trial.
“It is no doubt true that dissent is the essence of democracy. But that would not mean that the maker of a statement could get away from any statement in the garb of it being made during an election rally or in the post election rally. Making a speech in public is a speech made against the said person which would come to be known to each and every one,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said, “In this digital age anything spoken does not remain with the person who speaks it. It is circulated within no time. In the garb of dissent being the essence of democracy, the speeches should not malign the character of any person unless it is borne out by facts. The subject crime has to be tried, and trial is inevitable.”