The Calcutta High Court ruled that a Public Prosecutor can file a defamation case only when the alleged remarks concern a public official’s conduct in office, clarifying the legal boundaries in the Mamata Banerjee defamation case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has upheld a defamation complaint filed against an advocate accused of uploading pages of a book containing alleged details about the personal life of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and making related comments on television networks.
The Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray ruled that at this initial stage, the order of issuance of summons by the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court, Kolkata, cannot be said to be bad in law. The Court clarified that the Public Prosecutor has a statutory right to initiate proceedings if a Minister of a State is defamed concerning their conduct in the discharge of public duties.
Background of the Case
The controversy began after an author published a book in 2015, containing claims about Mamata Banerjee’s alleged marriage and private relationships before her tenure as Chief Minister. The book questioned her public image of integrity and honesty by suggesting discrepancies in her personal life.
The applicant, an advocate and politician, allegedly uploaded certain pages of the book, containing a letter dated April 30, 2012, written to Mamata Banerjee in her capacity as Chairperson of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), on social media platforms. The advocate also made comments on television networks regarding the same.
In response, the Public Prosecutor, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, filed a complaint under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, invoking Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, after obtaining statutory sanction. The Chief Judge subsequently issued a summons against the advocate.
ALSO READ: Online Gambling or E-Sports? Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Ban Plea
Court’s Observations
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray emphasized that although an accused cannot directly seek dismissal of a complaint, they may approach the Court for quashing proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) in suitable cases.
The Court noted that under Section 222(2) BNSS,
“a Public Prosecutor may file a defamation case against a person who makes statements defaming a public functionary, but only if the defamatory act relates to the official conduct of the functionary.”
However, the Court also acknowledged that the alleged remarks intertwined personal aspects of the Chief Minister’s life with her public position—including questions about whether the alleged individual attended official events such as the oath-taking ceremony at the Bidhan Sabha.
Justice Ray held that the Public Prosecutor’s complaint met the statutory requirements and that the issuance of summons was valid. The petition challenging the summons was therefore dismissed.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumder, Advocates Moyukh Mukherjee, Samrat Mondal
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor Rudradipta Nandy
Case Title:
Koustav Bagchi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
CRR 2817 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT