Supreme Court stays proceedings against Shashi Tharoor in case over PM Modi is 'scorpion' remark

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the trial court proceedings in the defamation case filed against Congress leader Shashi Tharoor over a statement comparing Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi to a scorpion [Shashi Tharoor v State of NCT of Delhi and anr]..A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan noted that the remark by Tharoor was not his original statement but was first made by another person in an article published in 2012 in Caravan magazine.The Court also remarked that it was unclear as to why someone had taken objection to Tharoor's remark since it seemed more like a metaphor and seemed to allude to the invincibility of PM Modi. "In 2012, it was not defamatory. Eventually it is a metaphor. I have tried to understand. It refers to the invincibility of the person referred to (Modi)," the Bench remarked.The Court, therefore, proceeded to issue notice to the complainant BJP leader as well as the State of Delhi and stayed all proceedings initiated in relation to the complaint against Tharoor. "Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Further proceeding in pursuant to the impugned judgment is stayed, until the returnable date", the Court directed..The Bench was hearing a plea by the senior Congress leader against a Delhi High Court order refusing to quash the case against him.Subsequently, the trial court which was hearing the defamation complaint had issued summons to him calling for his appearance today in the defamation case.A trial court had issued the summons after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Rajiv Babbar filed the defamation case against Tharoor.The Congress leader had allegedly made the statement, Mr. Modi is a scorpion sitting on a Shivling, in November 2018 at the Bangalore Literature Festival.Tharoor maintained that it was not his original statement and that he was merely quoting another person, Gordhan Zadaphia, and that statement has been in public domain for the last several years.On August 9, Delhi High Court had refused to quash the case..The High Court held Tharoor’s remarks amounted to defaming Modi, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).It ruled that the “imputations against a sitting Prime Minister are despicable and deplorable” and have a bearing on the image of the party, its members and its functionaries.Tharoor then moved the Supreme Court through advocate Abishek Jebaraj..During the hearing today advocate Md. Ali Khan, appearing for Tharoor, said that the High Court has expanded the definition of 'person aggrieved' in a defamation matter to unacceptable limits. "Can a statement which was not defamatory acquire such character almost a decade later," he asked.On the facts of the case, he said that the statement was originally contained in an article published in 2012 by Caravan magazine. Tharoor had later made the same statement in 2018, Khan pointed out."Please see the complaint. He (Babbar) was aware of the 2012 article. This article was very widely circulated when it was published. The person named in the article was there on videos as well," Khan said."Was there any reference to any person in the Caravan article," the Bench queried."The title of the article. It was about the rise of the then Chief Minister. It was in public domain. The respondent number 2 who was a member of the BJP did not have any offence with that in 2012 and then when he filed a complaint, he left the key person out of the complaint who is there on video as well repeating the statements," Khan stated..The Bench then agreed with Khan.'In 2012, it was not defamatory. Eventually it is a metaphor. I have tried to understand. It refers to the invincibility of the person referred to (Modi). What is the Hindi phrase," Justice Roy asked."Shivling me bicchu baitha hai.. na use hath se utha sakte ho na use maar sakte ho," Khan replied."It is basically a figure of speech which uses words and phrases and applies to object and action with no relation to object and action. If the metaphor is to be understood in the manner we understand. Very often metaphor is known to kill the truth. Or a picture which depicts what a thousand words cannot depict. Or metaphor substitute a thousand words. I do not know why somebody has taken objection here," the Court remarked."Courts will be inundated with litigation of these sorts if this is allowed at all," Khan underscored.The Court then asked whether the statement is covered any of the exception to the crime of defamation."Good faith, primarily good faith. Then in section 499 IPC. It is only person aggrieved who can actually file such a complaint of defamation," Khan replied."Are you saying this person (Babbar) is not aggrieved," Justice Roy queried. "Not at all in any capacity. He was not named. His party was not named. This entire incident is about how a person comes to his office and says see how is your party. The complaint reproduces this," Khan responded..Advocates Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Uday Bhatia, Reyna Shruti, Arjun Sharma, Kamran Khan and Gurbani Bhatia assisted Advocate Khan in the matter..[Read order]