SC to hear Kangana Ranaut's plea in defamation case tomorrow
What's the story
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut's plea on Friday, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to dismiss her petition seeking the quashing of a defamation case. The case arose from a retweet by Ranaut about a woman protestor during the 2020-21 farmer protests. The complaint was filed by Mahinder Kaur (73) in 2021, who alleged that Ranaut made "false imputations and remarks" against her in the retweet.
Details
Case arose from Ranaut's tweet during farmer protests
The defamation case against Ranaut stems from her retweet where she commented on Kaur, saying she was the same "dadi" named Bilkis Bano who participated in the Shaheen Bagh protest. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on August 1, observed that specific allegations against Ranaut had dented Kaur's reputation and lowered her esteem in the eyes of others.
Legal proceedings
Petition filed by Ranaut in high court
Ranaut had filed a petition before the high court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint filed under Section 499/500 IPC and also the summoning order of February 22, 2022, by the trial court. The Bathinda court had issued a process against her after recording satisfaction that a prima facie case under Section 499 IPC was made out against Ranaut.
Defense
Bathinda court's summoning order not sustainable, argued counsel
In the high court, Ranaut's counsel argued that the Bathinda court's summoning order was not sustainable as it violated the Criminal Procedure Code. They contended that the magistrate had called for a report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) after preliminary evidence was recorded by Kaur, but could not have summoned Ranaut as the report was never received.
Verdict
HC upheld decision of trial court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Bathinda court's decision, stating that the magistrate had duly applied their mind to the material on record before issuing the process against Ranaut. The court noted that non-receipt of TCIPL's report could not be a ground to divest the magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 202 CrPC. It added that TCIPL was neither the owner nor in control of Twitter.com and was merely a separate entity engaged in research, development, and marketing.