Right to free speech does not confer right to tarnish someone's reputation: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently observed that the fundamental right to speech does not confer any right to tarnish someone's reputation in society [Soumendra Kumar Biswas vs Sheshadri Goswami]..A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas reiterated that the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, even though it is regarded not only as a Constitutional right but a right inhered in every human.."Having a fundamental right of right to freedom of speech and expression into an individual does not confer such right in absolute form if it tarnishes the image and reputation of a person which he owes to the society and therefore, a balancing is required in this regard," the bench held..The Court explained that the reputation of a person is important in society. Therefore, any attempt to tarnish such reputation through false allegations must be restrained, the bench said."The reputation of a person is one of the primary factor which weighs in the society and any attempt either by a spoken word or publication or letters circulated through internet portal on the basis of an unsubstantiated and false allegation can be restrained," the Court's October 18 order stated..The Court also quoted the Supreme Court's observations in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. UOI (2016), to reiterate that "the freedom of speech cannot be regarded as so righteous that it would make the reputation of another individual absolutely ephemeral.".The observations were made while dealing with a plea filed by Soumendra Kumar Biswas, the Director of IFB Group.Biswas moved the Court seeking restraining orders against the defendants, who claimed to be a forum of the investors in the said IFB Group..The defendants had lodged a complaint against Biswas in 2015 alleging several criminal activities on his part. However, the police eventually found that all those allegations were baseless and filed a closure report in 2017. .This move to close the case for lack of evidence was then challenged before the High Court. However, the Court also declined to give the defendants any relief. The defendants then circulated a letter making "scurrilous" allegations against Biswas, in which he was accused of having an "ill motive" and of filing false cases against the defendants to jeopardise their case.Biswas, therefore, moved a plea before a sessions court to restrain the defendants from making such statements. However, the court below declined to pass an injunction order, opining that Biswas could be adequately compensated through the payment of money instead..The High Court frowned upon such an approach by the trial court, pointing out that the trial could have also passed a restraining order in the matter. "Interestingly, the Trial Court even after having observed that although the plaintiff (Biswas) has been suffering more or less because of such action of the defendant, yet he can be compensated in terms of money ... though the compensation are claimed in the monetary form yet there is no impediment on the part of the Court to grant an injunction as the continuing wrong has a larger impact on the reputation of a person which he possessed in the society and in the eyes of his acquaintances," the High Court underscored..The High Court, therefore, passed an ad interim injunction order and restrained the defendants from posting any letter, either in physical form or in electronic form, against Biswas for ten weeks or until further orders..Advocates Jishnu Chowdhury, Souradeep Banerjee, SK Banerjee and S Sinha represented the plaintiff (Biswas)..[Read Judgment]