DATE OF ORDER:
05.07.2021
JUDGE:
Justice Anil Antil
PARTIES:
Sudhir Chaudhary (Revisionist)
State (Respondent)
Mahua Moitra (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The question raised for consideration in the present revision petition was whether the respondent has duly conducted the inquiry as mandated u/s 202(1) Cr.PC, before proceeding to summon the accused.
OVERVIEW
Background
• On 25 June 2019, Moitra had delivered a speech in the Parliament, wherein she elaborated and explained in detail how the seven signs of fascism apply to the prevailing situation in India.
• The seven signs of fascism are superficial nationalism, disdain for human rights, media control, obsession with national security, intertwining of religion and government, disdain for intellectuals and the arts, and erosion of independence of the electoral system.
• Chaudhary, on the prime-time show DNA on Zee News, dedicated an entire segment, personally attacking Moitra by passing defamatory comments.
• He alleged that Moitra plagiarized her speech from an article authored by Martin Longman titled “12 Signs of Fascism.”
• On 3 July 2019, Mr. Martin Longman, the author of the article also, clarified in his tweet, that her speech was not plagiarized.
• Moitra had said that a Holocaust poster containing 14 signs of early fascism in the U.S. Museum inspired her June 25, 2019, speech in Parliament.
• Therefore, the cognizance of the offence was taken, and he was summoned as an accused to face trial.
Revision Petition
• Chaudhary had approached the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
• The grounds raised to set aside the criminal proceedings against the accused were -
i. That the order passed by the trial court is cryptic. It passed mechanically without applying the judicial mind.
ii. That the outcome of the inquiry, evidence, and documentary record produced before the trial court was not clearly mentioned in the order.
iii. That the case of the Revisionist is covered under the exceptions of Section 499 IPC because the essential ingredients for the commission of defamation are not made out. There was no intention to defame anyone.
iv. That no preliminary inquiry to satisfy the mandate in terms of Section 202 Cr. P.C was conducted.
v. That the trial court has considered the news, reports, articles, etc., and photocopy of the documents even though the same is not legally admissible.
vi. That the complainant has made misrepresentation and concealment concerning the material or vital aspects of the matter.
• Respondent argued that the grounds raised in the revision petition are frivolous and flimsy. They stated that it is filled with ulterior motives and to delay the matter.
LEGAL PROVISION
• Section 397 Cr. P.C - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
• Section 500 IPC- Punishment for defamation
• Section 202 Cr.PC- Postponement of issue of the process
ORDER ANALYSES
• Relying on Vijay Dhanuka V. Najima Mamtaj, the Court held that the mandate of the law had duly complied.
• It was stated that the inquiry or the investigation was mandatory before the summons was issued against the accused, leaving beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
• Further, it was noted that every inquiry, other than the trial conducted by the Magistrate or the Court, was an inquiry. There was no specific mode or manner of the inquiry to be conducted.
• The Court observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) had specifically recorded that arguments were heard on the aspect of inquiry under Section 202.
• The MM, after appreciating the evidence of the complainant and two other witnesses held that the mandatory inquiry had been complied with.
• Court held that the impugned summoning order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned MM suffers from no illegality or perversity.
• It further stated that the impugned order was primarily based on the visual and other evidence placed before the Court.
• Noting that the objection of the Revisionist could not be sustained, the Court dismissed the Revision Petition.
CONCLUSION
Mahua Moitra caught the world’s attention for her inaugural speech on seven dangerous signs of early fascism that she sees in India today.
According to Article 121 of the Indian Constitution, Supreme Court or High Court judge who has discharged his or her duties or delivered a judgment cannot be debated in Parliament. As per, 352(5) of Rules and Procedures of Parliament, the conduct of those in constitutional positions cannot be questioned. Moitra, on the other hand, was defiant, saying it would be her privilege if a breach of privilege motion were filed, against her for speaking the truth during India's darkest hour.
Mahua Moitra had made a mark in the Lok Sabha.
