The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, questioned the rationale behind continuing the prosecution of Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav for his alleged defamatory statement, which he has since withdrawn. The case, which has garnered significant attention, involves Yadav’s comment,
“Only Gujaratis can be thugs in the present situation, and their fraud will be forgiven.”
Also read- Courts Can‘t Direct Government To Notify Law Passed By Parliament: Supreme Court (lawchakra.in)
The bench, comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, has adjourned the hearing to January 29, 2024. This decision came after the counsel for the complainant, Haresh Mehta, a local businessman and activist, requested more time. The Supreme Court, while considering Yadav’s petition seeking the transfer of the criminal defamation complaint from an Ahmedabad court to a location outside Gujarat, preferably Delhi, remarked,
“Why should the prosecution continue when he has withdrawn the statement?”
The complaint against Tejashwi Yadav was filed under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged criminal defamation. In August of the previous year, a Gujarat court conducted a preliminary inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found sufficient grounds to summon Yadav based on Mehta’s complaint.
Also read- Eleven Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case Surrender Following Supreme Court Deadline (lawchakra.in)
Tejashwi Yadav’s controversial statement, made while speaking to the media in Patna in March 2023, implied that Gujaratis were being favored and their fraudulent activities overlooked. He further questioned,
“Who will be responsible if they run away with the money belonging to the LIC or banks?”
Mehta claimed that Tejashwi Yadav’s comments defamed all Gujaratis.
The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint and issued notice to Mehta. During the hearing, the bench indicated its willingness to exercise powers under Article 142 if the counsel for the respondent did not seek instructions on the statement filed by Tejashwi Yadav on January 19.
This case highlights the complexities involved in defamation law and the implications of retracting statements. The Supreme Court’s query into the continuation of prosecution despite the withdrawal of the statement by Tejashwi Yadav brings to the forefront the debate on the limits and scope of criminal defamation in India.
TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA
