The Court also noted that it was unclear why Tharoor’s statement was being contested, as it appeared to be more of a metaphor referring to Modi’s perceived invincibility.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(10th Sept): The Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings in the defamation case against Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, who had compared Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a scorpion.
Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan, presiding over the case, observed that Tharoor’s comment was not originally his own but was first made by another individual in a 2012 Caravan magazine article.
The Court also noted that it was unclear why Tharoor’s statement was being contested, as it appeared to be more of a metaphor referring to Modi’s perceived invincibility.
“In 2012, it was not considered defamatory. Ultimately, it is a metaphor,” the Bench remarked, adding that the comment refers to the perceived invincibility of the individual mentioned (Modi).
The counsel replied that it could be interpreted as “can’t live with, can’t live without.” Justice Roy noted that a metaphor can be understood in various ways.
As a result, the Court issued notices to both the complainant BJP leader and the State of Delhi, and put a hold on all proceedings related to the complaint against Tharoor.
The Court directed: “Issue notice. Returnable in four weeks. All further proceedings related to the contested judgment are stayed until further orders.”
The Bench was considering a plea from senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor challenging a Delhi High Court decision that refused to dismiss the defamation case against him.
The trial court had previously issued summons for Tharoor to appear today in the defamation case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Rajiv Babbar. This case stemmed from Tharoor’s alleged comment at the Bangalore Literature Festival in November 2018, where he referred to Modi as a “scorpion sitting on a Shivling.”
Tharoor contended that the statement was not originally his but was a quote from Gordhan Zadaphia and had been publicly available for years.
On August 9, the Delhi High Court declined to quash the case, ruling that Tharoor’s remarks amounted to defamation of Modi, the BJP, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The High Court described the comments as “despicable and deplorable” and noted their impact on the image of the party and its members.
Tharoor then appealed to the Supreme Court through his advocate, Abishek Jebaraj. During today’s hearing, advocate Md. Ali Khan, representing Tharoor, argued that the High Court had unacceptably broadened the definition of ‘person aggrieved’ in defamation cases.
“Can a statement that wasn’t considered defamatory at the time acquire such a character almost a decade later?”
he questioned.
Khan noted that the original statement appeared in a 2012 article published by Caravan magazine. Tharoor repeated the statement in 2018, he pointed out.
“Review the complaint. Babbar was aware of the 2012 article, which was widely circulated. The person mentioned in the article was also seen in videos,”
Khan stated.
The Bench asked,
“Did the Caravan article reference any specific person?”
Khan responded,
“The article’s title was about the rise of the then Chief Minister. It was public knowledge. Babbar, a BJP member, had no issue with the article in 2012. When he filed the complaint, he omitted the key person who was also on video repeating the statements.”
The Bench agreed with Khan’s assessment.
“In 2012, it was not deemed defamatory. Ultimately, it is a metaphor. It refers to the perceived invincibility of the individual mentioned (Modi). What is the Hindi phrase?”
Justice Roy asked.
Khan replied,
“Shivling me bicchu baitha hai… na use hath se utha sakte ho na use maar sakte ho.”
The Court remarked,
“It’s essentially a figure of speech that uses words to describe something in a way that doesn’t directly relate to the object or action. Metaphors often convey ideas that words alone cannot. It’s unclear why this metaphor is causing objections.”
Khan emphasized,
“Allowing such cases could overwhelm the courts with litigation of this nature.”
The Court then inquired whether the statement fell under any exceptions to defamation.
Khan responded,
“Primarily, good faith. According to Section 499 IPC, only the aggrieved person can file a defamation complaint.”
Justice Roy asked,
“Are you saying Babbar is not aggrieved?”
Khan replied,
“Not at all. He was not named, nor was his party. The complaint itself reproduces the incident.”
Advocates Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Uday Bhatia, Reyna Shruti, Arjun Sharma, Kamran Khan, and Gurbani Bhatia assisted Advocate Khan in the case.
