Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor

 The Supreme Court of India has intervened in the ongoing criminal defamation proceedings against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, stemming from remarks he made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a 2018 event. The court's decision to stay the proceedings was made on September 10, 2024, following Tharoor's appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling that had rejected his plea to quash the defamation case.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when Tharoor, while speaking at the Bangalore Literature Festival in 2018, quoted a remark attributed to an unnamed leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from a 2012 article published by The Caravan. The comment likened Modi to "a scorpion sitting on a Shivling," which Tharoor described as an "extraordinarily striking metaphor." The defamation complaint was filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, who claimed that Tharoor's remarks were an "intolerable abuse" that hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Lord Shiva devotees.

In August 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed Tharoor's plea to quash the defamation proceedings, stating that his comments not only defamed Modi but also the BJP and RSS, suggesting that the remarks indicated Modi's unacceptability within the RSS. The court emphasized that the imputation against a sitting Prime Minister significantly impacts the image of the political party and its members, which is crucial for the electoral process.

Supreme Court Proceedings

During the recent Supreme Court hearing, Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan listened to arguments presented by Tharoor's counsel, Advocate Mohammed Ali Khan. Khan argued that Tharoor's statement was a mere quotation from a previously published article and questioned how a remark that was not considered defamatory in 2012 could suddenly be deemed so in 2018.

Justice Roy highlighted the metaphorical nature of the comment, suggesting that it could represent the "invincibility" of the person being discussed. He expressed confusion over why the remark had drawn objections, indicating that metaphors can be interpreted in various ways.

Khan further contended that the criminal defamation complaint was improperly filed, as it did not include the original source of the remark or the individual who made the statement in The Caravan as parties to the case. He argued that members of a political party cannot be classified as a determinable class of aggrieved parties concerning comments made about their leader.

Legal Implications

The Supreme Court's decision to stay the proceedings allows Tharoor to avoid immediate legal repercussions while the case is reviewed. The bench also issued a notice to Babbar and requested a response from the Delhi Police, scheduling the next hearing for four weeks later.

Tharoor's defense rests on the assertion that his comments fall under the exceptions for "good faith imputations" as outlined in the Indian Penal Code. His legal team has maintained that the comments were made in good faith and were a fair reproduction of prior statements, thus not constituting criminal defamation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's intervention in the defamation case against Shashi Tharoor underscores the complex interplay between political discourse and legal accountability in India. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for freedom of expression, particularly in the context of political criticism. As the legal proceedings continue, the court's interpretation of metaphors and the definition of "aggrieved parties" in defamation cases will be closely scrutinized, potentially setting important precedents for future cases involving political figures and their statements.