Author: Kurma Bhanu Chandra Jyothi
– Sri Padmavati Mahila Viswavidhyalayam.
To The Point:
In this case Khusboo is petitioner and she is well known actress in Tamil Nadu and filed quash petition against Kanniammal and another in High court of Madras and the said petition is rejected by the High court and then she approached Supreme court for granting special leave to her against the order passed by High court of Madras.
- The present case is linked to cybercrime when the statement of the petitioner was published in the India Today as follow “According to me, sex is not only concerned with the body; but also concerned with the conscious. I could not understand matters such as changing boyfriends every week. When a girl is committed to her boyfriend, she can tell her parents and go out with him. When their daughter is having a serious relationship, the parents should allow the same. After this, the same statement was published in ‘Dhina Thanthi’ which was the daily newspaper in Tamil Nadu published the same and due these sensation statements it was related to cybercrime.
Use of legal Jargon:
The legal jargon involved in the case, Defamation, Freedom of speech, public interest and Indecent representation of women (prohibition Act, 1986).
- Defamation comes under section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It states that the statement that harms a person’s reputation. It can be written or spoken.
- Freedom of speech comes under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It guarantees citizens the freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to express oneself through speech, writing, printing and visual representations.
- Public interest the court assessed the Kushboo’s statements were in the public interest.
- Indecent representation of Women is the Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women.
The Proof:
1. Writ Petition: S. Khushboo filed a writ petition (WP No. 34123 of 2008) before the Madras High Court, seeking directions to remove defamatory content from the website.
2. Affidavit: Khushboo filed an affidavit, stating that the website contained false and defamatory content, harming her reputation.
3. Judgment: The Madras High Court delivered its judgment on October 29, 2008, directing the website to remove the defamatory content.
**Evidence**
1. Website Content: Printouts of the website’s content, which allegedly contained defamatory statements about Khushboo.
2. Newspaper Articles: Articles from various newspapers, which reported on the controversy surrounding Khushboo’s alleged remarks.
3. Witness Statements: Statements from witnesses, who claimed to have seen the defamatory content on the website.
** Legal Provisions**
1. Section 499 IPC: Defamation – defines the offense of defamation and prescribes punishment.
2. Section 500 IPC: Punishment for Defamation – prescribes the punishment for the offense of defamation.
3. Section 67 IT Act: Publishing obscene information – prohibits the publication of obscene information in electronic form.
** Online Resources**
1. Madras High Court Website: The official website of the Madras High Court, which provides access to court judgments and orders.
2. Indian Kanoon: A website that provides access to Indian court judgments and laws.
3. Google Scholar: A search engine for scholarly literature, which provides access to articles and research papers related to the case.
Abstract:
The present case in the hand is that, the petitioner has responded to the topic which was the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex, especially in context of living relationship which was raised by leading news maxim that is “Indian Today” and for that the petitioner had expressed her point of view that now a days there are increasing the number of live- in relationships and girls should be aware of pre-marital sex and unwanted pregnancy and transmission of venereal diseases. It may lead to disputes after marriage because every man wants his wife to be virgin. But when they having sexual relationship girls with others. They should protect themselves from conceiving and getting venereal diseases.
These remarks were published alongside a survey, the relevant extracts of which are stated below:
“Will you marry a person who had relationship with others?
18% – Yes, 71% – No Is it necessary to be a virgin till the time of marriage?
65% – Yes, 26% – No The remaining percentage of people said: Do not know/Cannot say 82% women had given an opinion that a girl should be a virgin at the time of marriage.
Latterly, Dhina Thanthi, A Tamil daily carried a news point on 24.09.2005 which first quoted the complainant’s statement published in India Today and also editorialized that it had created a sensation each over the state of Tamil Nadu. This news point also reported a discussion between the appellant and a pressman from Dhina- Thanthi.
However, after publication of the news item, the appellant had sent a legal notice dated on 2.10.2005 to the Editor of `Dhina Thanthi’,. She denying that statement quoted in news. And also, Appellant asked that to publisher to withdraw the new item on 24.09.2024.
After that many cases filled on appellant from Indore, Madhya Pradesh and PMK (political party) and also some statements are, it was suggested that all women in Tamil Nadu had lost their virginity begore marriage. The complaints alleged to appellant had committed offences Punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504, 505(1)(b) and 509 IPC read with Section 6 of Act 1986. Most of the cases were filled in Tamil Nadu district.
The appellant approached the high court of Madras to says that , quashing of all the criminal proceedings filled against her. The court refused to quash the proceeding on her (30.04.2008) because of the powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The High court noted that two introductory questions were involved in the case. Originally, whether the appellant could claim any of the recognised defencess against the allegations of having committed vilification, as contemplated by section 299 IPC. Secondly, whether the suers could at all be described as displeased persons within the meaning of section 199Cr.PC. Since that was linked to the question of whether the appellant had been made in a bona fide manner. The high court allowed it fit to leave both these questions for consideration by trial judge, and in a partial both reprieve to the appellant it was directed that all the felonious proceeding proceedings pending her be consolidated and tried by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai. Still, the high court also progressed to record its own views regarding the contents of the appellant’s statements and indeed made some strong compliances condemning the prevalence of adulterous coitus and live- in Relationships.
After she approached Supreme court for granting special leave to her against the order passed by High court of Madras. Supreme court observed that appellant has merely referred to increasing incidence of premarital sex. And other side also.
Finally, the given judgement was the Supreme Court held that there is no prima facie case of defamation in the present case. The court also found that the institution of the numerous criminal complaints against the Appellant was done in a mala fide manner. In order to help the abuse of the felonious law ministry, it would be applicable to grant the relief sought by the Appellant i.e., to quash all the complaints. In similar cases, the proper course for Adjudicators is to use their statutory powers to direct an disquisition into the allegation. thus, it is n’t the task of the felonious law to discipline individualities simply for expressing unpopular views.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, it can be said that, this judgement of the supreme court is grounded upon a fact which the framers of the constitution also honored that’s the significance of securing the freedom of speech and expression since the free inflow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the philanthropy of the populace. Also, an informed populace is a recondition for meaningful governance as it promotes the open dialogue between the government and society
Case Laws:
** Cyber Harassment and Stalking**
1.State of Maharashtra v. Raghuvir Singh (2018): The Bombay High Court convicted a man for cyberstalking and harassing a woman on social media
** Revenge Porn and Online Abuse**
1. State of Kerala v. Nisham (2019): The Kerala High Court convicted a man for sharing intimate videos of his ex-partner online, violating her right to privacy.
2. RIT Foundation v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019): The Delhi High Court directed the police to take action against online platforms hosting revenge porn content.
**Online Safety and Privacy**
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, including online privacy.
2. Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India (2017): The Kerala High Court directed the government to ensure online safety for women, including measures to prevent cyberstalking and harassment.
** Cybercrime Against Women**
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Accused (2019): The Madras High Court convicted a man for creating and sharing fake social media profiles of women, with intent to harass and defame.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh (2018): The Bombay High Court convicted a man for creating and distributing obscene content featuring women online.
FAQs:
1. What were Khushboo’s remarks?
Khushboo had stated in an interview that there was nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, and that women had the right to choose their partners.
2. What was the complainants’ contention?
The complainants alleged that Khushboo’s remarks were derogatory and had hurt their reputation.
3. What was the court’s decision?
The Supreme Court held that Khushboo’s remarks did not constitute defamation, as they were made in the public interest and did not harm the reputation of the complainants.
4. What was the legal basis for the court’s decision?
The court relied on Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines defamation, and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
5. What was the significance of the case?
The case was significant because it highlighted the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the protection of individual reputations.
6. Did the court impose any penalty on Khushboo?
No, the court did not impose any penalty on Khushboo, as it held that her remarks did not constitute defamation.
7. Can the decision be appealed?
No, the decision of the Supreme Court is final and binding, and cannot be appealed.
8. What is the implication of the decision for future cases?
The decision has implications for future cases involving defamation and freedom of speech, and highlights the need for courts to balance these competing interests.
.
