Supreme Court will on September 12 hear actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut’s plea challenging a defamation case filed against her over alleged remarks linked to her retweet about a female protestor during the 2020–21 farmer protests.
The Supreme Court will hear the plea of actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, who is contesting a high court decision that refused to dismiss a case against her for allegedly making defamatory remarks related to the farmer protests of 2020-21.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is set to address the issue.
Ranaut’s challenge pertains to a defamation case that arose from her retweet, which included her commentary about a female protestor during the farmer protests against the now-repealed farm laws.
The complaint was lodged by Mahinder Kaur, a 73-year-old resident of Bahadurgarh Jandian village in Punjab’s Bathinda district, in 2021.
In her complaint to a Bathinda court, Kaur claimed that Ranaut made “false imputations and remarks” by suggesting in her retweet that Kaur was the same “dadi” as Bilkis Bano, a prominent figure from the Shaheen Bagh protest.
Kaur stated, as noted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its August 1 ruling,
“There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide,” .
The court order further explained,
“A reading of the impugned order as a whole, makes it apparent that the Magistrate (Bathinda court) has duly applied mind to the material on record, and only after recording satisfaction that commission of offence under Sections 499 IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner, the process has been issued…”
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the former CrPC to quash the complaint lodged under Sections 499 and 500 of the now-repealed IPC, as well as the trial court’s summoning order from February 22, 2022. Kaur indicated that she participated in various protests from the onset of the farmer’s agitation and traveled to Delhi to join the demonstrations, despite her advanced age.
She emphasized that she had no connection to the woman from Shaheen Bagh who was featured in ‘Time magazine‘, with whom she was compared in Ranaut’s tweet.
Kaur alleged that Ranaut’s remarks were “false imputation and defamatory,” which harmed her pride, honor, and reputation on social media.
Kangana’s legal team contended in the high court that the Bathinda court’s summoning order was not valid as it violated the criminal procedure code. They argued that since the report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) had not been received, the magistrate should not have summoned Ranaut.
Furthermore, it was claimed that Ranaut had no intention of damaging Kaur’s reputation. Justice Dahiya noted in his ruling,
“Non-receipt of report by TCIPL as to whether the alleged retweet has been made by the petitioner, cannot be a ground to divest the Magistrate (of court in Bathinda) of jurisdiction under Section 202 CrPC. The report could not be submitted as the company was neither the owner nor in control of twitter.com, and was a separate entity engaged only in research, development and marketing.”