CRITICISM OF PUBLIC SERVANT AND DEFAMATION

5.2 Criminal Law-I

Submitted by -
Ritu Raj
UID – UG 18-75
B.A.LL.B.(H0ns.)
Semester V
Academic Year - 2020-21

Submitted t0 –
Ms. Divita Pagey
Assistant Pr0fess0r 0f Law

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

Table 0f C0ntents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................3

AIM.............................................................................................................................................................4

OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................................................4

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................................5

PUBLIC SERVANT...................................................................................................................................5

DEFAMATION...........................................................................................................................................6

Secti0n 199, Cr.P.C., 1973..........................................................................................................................7

Aggrieved Pers0n under Secti0n 199 under the c0de..................................................................................8

Landmark judgements.................................................................................................................................9

The rati0nale...............................................................................................................................................9

The CASE.................................................................................................................................................10

Critical Analysis........................................................................................................................................11

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................12
INTRODUCTION
“Since defamati0n1 is c0nsidered a great evil, s0 pr0visi0n f0r reas0nable legislative abridgement
0n freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n and 0f press in relati0n t0 defamati0n has been made in the
restrictive clause (2) 0f Article 19. The restrictive clause (2) 0f Article 19, as 0riginally drafted
did n0t c0ntain the w0rds ‘defamati0n’. Instead the w0rd ‘libel’ and ‘slander’ were there as
gr0unds 0f restricti0ns. The C0nstituti0n (First Amendment) Act, 1951 deleted them and 0nly
w0rd ‘defamati0n’ was substituted. P.M. Bakshi 0pines that the imp0rtance 0f this branch 0f law
gr0ws with civilizati0n. With an increase in the use 0f mass media 0f c0mmunicati0n and with
the spread 0f literacy, the gr0wth 0f reading habit and the techn0l0gical advances that enable the
sp0ken and the written w0rd t0 be c0nveyed t0 be a very large number 0f pe0ple, there is
naturally an increase, n0t 0nly in the v0lume 0f written as well as 0ral matter, but als0 in the
audience that it reaches 0r is capable 0f reaching. This increases the likelih 00d 0f harm t0
reputati0n. At the same time, with the advent 0f dem0cracy and the rec0gniti0n 0f the
imp0rtance 0f freed0m 0f expressi0n and the emphasis placed 0n the right 0f the public t0 kn0w
the truth 0n 6 certain matters, s0me part 0f the law 0f defamati0n may need ref0rms.”
‘Defamati0n’, in simple language is the term which means t 0 harm the g00d reputati0n 0f the
0ther pers0n. F0r example, abusing, publishing defamat0ry material against s0me0ne, malici0us
g0ssip, character assassinati0n etc. “Defamati0n may als0 be called as calumny, vilificati0n and
traducement. If s0me0ne defamed the 0ther pers0n 0rally then such an act is termed as slander
and if it is d0ne by the way 0f printed w0rds 0r images then it is termed as libel. Sections 499-
502 0f Indian penal c0de talked ab0ut defamati0n. This is the immunity pr0vided t0 each and
every individual t0 pr0tect his/her reputati0n”. “If such an allegati0n is pr0ved in the c0urt 0f
law, then relief in the f0rm 0f c0mpensati0n is granted t0 the victim and als0 there is a pr0visi0n
f0r punishment under section 500 which is impris0nment up t0 2 years 0r fine 0r b0th. S0, this is
the right 0f every citizen 0f India t0 exercise this p0wer in case 0f any defamat0ry act is d0ne by
any0ne against him. He can easily sue in the c 0urt 0f law and demand f0r such a relief f0r his
l0st reputati0n.”
“At present the law 0f defamati0n c0nsists 0f tw0 parts 0ne civil and an0ther criminal. In India
civil law relating t0 defamati0n is generally determined2 acc0rding t0 principles 0f English
1
Defamation is a generic term of which ‘libel’ and ‘slander’ are species known to English Law.
2
Garg, Dayanand, Freedom of the Press and the Law of Defamation (July 1, 2011). Nirma University Law Journal,
2011, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3113262.
c0mm0n law.” F0r example, at c0mm0n law a pers0n cann0t rec0ver damages in regard t0 injury
t0 a character which he d0es n0t p0ssess 0r reputati0n t0 which he has n0 reas0nable claim.
Similarly, fair and h0nest c0mment made with0ut malice and with respect t0 a matter 0f public
interest is a g00d defense t0 an acti0n f0r libel.3
“India is 0ne 0f the few c0untries in the w0rld which have b0th civil and criminal defamati0n
pr0ceedings and punishments which stretch up t 0 tw0 years in pris0n 0r a fine 0r b0th. But this
British-era law is 0ften misused by influential pe0ple and p0liticians t0 crack d0wn 0n 0bjecti0n.
A pers0n 0r gr0up 0f pers0ns cann0t be pr0secuted f0r defamati0n f0r calling a g0vernment
c0rrupt 0r unfit.”
AIM
Aim 0f the researcher is t0 study the c0ncept 0f defamati0n in India. The researcher als0 aims t0
deeply g0 thr0ugh the c0ncept 0f defamati0n as a crime in India and the legal system. The
researcher als0 wishes t0 pr0duce a deeper insight int0 the act 0f defamati0n with regard t0 the
public servants and t0 study the vari0us pr0visi0ns under the existing Laws.
OBJECTIVES
1. T0 study the ambit 0f public servant in the Indian Legal system.
2. T0 expl0re the c0ncept 0f defamati0n as a crime in India.
3. T0 study the sc0pe 0f c0ncept 0f criticism 0f public servant and defamati0n.
4. T0 devel0p an insight int0 vari0us legal pr0visi0ns under existing legislati0ns.
5. T0 understand the extent 0f the criticism 0f public servant vis a vis defamati0n.
SCOPE & LIMITATIONS
This pr0ject 0nly deals with the relati0n and study 0f criticism 0f Public servant and defamati0n
in India. This pr0ject intends t0 highlight the c0ncept 0f defamati0n and its c0ncurrent
pr0visi0ns in vari0us statutes.
This pr0ject d0es n0t delve int0 the laws and legislati0ns 0f 0ther jurisdicti0ns and it limits the
study t0 India 0nly. This pr0ject als0 d0es n0t g0 thr0ugh the c0ncept 0f defamati0n n0t in
relati0n t0 the public servants.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research w0rk is basically based up0n a d0ctrinal f0rm 0f research. As this research is
d0ctrinal, it is wh0lly based 0n the library research which includes the c0llecti0n 0f data fr0m
the b00ks that is the sec0ndary s0urces. The researcher has underg0ne vari0us b00ks in 0rder t0
get the c0mplete kn0wledge 0f the t0pic. The researcher has read vari0us b00ks written by
3
Vaasawa Sharma, Injury to reputation: Defamation Suits in India, Volume 3, Issue 2, International Journal of Law.
pr0minent writers. The researcher has read the research t 0pic and f0rmulated it in the research
pr0ject. The researcher has tried t0 c0llect inf0rmati0n 0n the f0rmulated t0pic thr0ugh vari0us
s0urces that includes b00ks, vari0us articles and the j0urnals. The researcher has tried t0 imbibe
all the related the0ries and d0ctrines int0 the pr0ject.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the c0ncept 0f Public servant in India and wh0 falls under it as per the existing
laws?
2. What is defamati0n and its relevant pr0visi0ns in existing statutes under Indian Legal
system?
3. What is the permissible extent and sc0pe 0f criticism 0f public servants and defamati0n?
4. What are the grey areas under the existing c0ncept and what are the 0bservati0ns 0f
Higher c0urts 0n this?
PUBLIC SERVANT
“Public servant is defined under Secti0n 21. The w0rd ‘Public servant’ expresses a pers0n
falling under any 0f the descripti0ns hereinafter f0ll0wing namely-
First - [Repealed by the Ad0pti0n 0f Laws, 0rder, 1950],
Sec0nd - Every C0mmissi0ned 0fficer in the Military, Naval 0r Air F0rce 0f India.
Third - Every Judge including any pers0n emp0wered by law t0 discharge whether by himself
0r as a member 0f any b0dy 0f pers0ns, any adjudicat0ry functi0ns.
F0urth - Every 0fficer 0f a c0urt 0f justice (including a liquidat0r, receiver 0r C0mmissi0ners)
wh0se duty it is, as such 0fficers, t0 investigate 0r rep0rt 0n any matter 0f law 0r fact, 0r t0
make; authenticate 0r keep any d0cument, 0r t0 take change 0r disp0se 0f any pr0perty, 0r t0
execute any judicial pr0cess, 0r t0 administer any 0ath, 0r t0 interpret, 0r t0 preserve 0rder in
the c0urt, and every pers0n specially auth0rized by a C0urt 0f Justice t0 perf0rm any 0f such
duties.
Fifth - Every juryman, assess0r, 0r member 0f a panchayat assisting a c0urt 0f Justice 0r public
servant.
Sixth - Every arbitrat0r 0r 0ther pers0ns t0 wh0m any cause 0r matter has been referred f0r
decisi0n 0r rep0rt by any c0urt 0f Justice, 0r by any 0ther c0mpetent public auth0rity.
Seventh - Every pers0n wh0 h0ld any 0ffice by virtue 0f which he is emp0wered t0 place 0r
keep any pers0n in c0nfinement.
Eighth - Every 0fficer 0f the G0vernment wh0se duty it is, as such 0fficer, t0 prevent 0ffences,
t0 give inf0rmati0n 0f 0ffences, t0 bring 0ffenders t0 justice, 0r t0 pr0tect the public health,
safety 0r c0nvenience;
Ninth - Every 0fficer wh0se duty it is as such 0fficer, t0 take, receive, keep 0r expend any
pr0perty 0n behalf 0f the G0vernment, 0r t0 make any survey, assessment 0r c0ntract 0n behalf
0f the G0vernment, 0r t0 execute any revenue pr0cess, 0r t0 investigate, 0r t0 rep0rt, 0n any
matter affecting the pecuniary interests 0f the G0vernment, 0r t0 make authenticate 0r keep any
d0cument relating t0 the pecuniary interests 0f the G0vernment, 0r t0 prevent the infracti0n 0f
any law f0r the pr0tecti0n 0f the pecuniary interests 0f the G0vernment;
Tenth - Every 0fficer wh0se duty it is, as such 0fficer, t0 take, receive, keep 0r expend any
pr0perty, t0 make any survey 0r assessment 0r t0 levy any rate 0r tax f0r any secular c0mm0n
purp0se 0f any village, t0wn 0r district, 0r t0 make, authenticate 0r keep any d0cument f0r the
ascertaining 0f the rights 0f the pe0ple 0f any village, t0wn 0r district;
Eleventh - Every pers0n wh0 h0lds any 0ffice in virtue 0f which he is emp0wered t0 prepare,
publish, maintain 0r revise an elect0ral r0ll 0r t0 c0nduct an electi0n 0r part 0f an electi0n;
Twelfth - Every pers0n
(a) in the service 0r pay 0f the G0vernment 0r remunerated by fees 0r c0mmissi0n
f0r the perf0rmance 0f any public duty by the G0vernment;
(b) in the service 0r pay 0f a l0cal auth0rity, a c0rp0rati0n established by 0r under a
Central, Pr0vincial 0r State Act 0r a G0vernment c0mpany as defined in secti0n
617 0f the C0mpanies Act, 1956 (1 0f 1956).”
DEFAMATION
“Defamati0n is a wide term which includes attacking an0ther’s reputati0n by a false publicati0n
tending t0 bring the pers0n int0 disrepute, which harms a pers0n’s reputati0n, decreases the
respect, regard, 0r c0nfidence in which a pers0n is held 0r disagreeable 0pini0ns 0r feelings
against a pers0n, entity, gr0up, g0vernment etc.” Written defamati0n is called “libel,” while
sp0ken defamati0n is called “slander.”4
In India defamati0n is b0th a civil as well as a criminal 0ffence. The pers0n wh0 is defamed is
0ffered a remedy b0th as in civil law f0r damages5 and in criminal law f0r punishment. Secti0n
499 0f the IPC pr0vides f0r defamati0n and Secti0n 500 0f the IPC f0r punishment in respect 0f

4
https://devgan.in/ipc/section/21 visited on 19/09/2020.
5
Supra at 3.
the ab0ve said 0ffence.
There are 10 excepti0ns t0 defamati0n 0ut 0f all the imp0rtant excepti0n which is relevant at
hand is the sec0nd excepti0n t0 the pr0visi0n 0f defamati0n under the law as-
(2) Public c0nduct 0f public servants - It is n0t defamati0n t0 express in g00d faith any 0pini0n
whatever respecting the c0nduct 0f a public servant in the discharge 0f his public functi0ns, 0r
respecting his character, s0 far his character appears in that c0nduct, and n0 further.
Secti0n 199, Cr.P.C.,1973
“Secti0n 199 talks ab0ut Pr0secuti0n f0r defamati0n. Its clause 1 says that n0 c0urt shall take
c0gnizance 0f all 0ffence punishable under Chapter XXI 0f the Indian Penal C0de except up0n a
c0mplaint made by s0me aggrieved pers0n by the 0ffence.”6
Clause 2 0f secti0n 199 pr0vides f0r a special pr0cedure with regard t0 initiati0n 0f a
pr0secuti0n f0r 0ffence 0f defamati0n c0mmitted against the c0nstituti0nal functi0naries and
public servants menti0ned therein.7 H0wever, the 0ffence alleged t0 have been c0mmitted must
be in respect 0f acts/c0nduct in the discharge 0f public functi0ns 0f the c0ncerned functi0nary 0r
public servant, as may be. The pr 0secuti0n Under Secti0n 199 (2) C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure is
required t0 be initiated by the Public Pr0secut0r
Clause 3, 4 and 5 0f this secti0n is c0nnected t0 sub-secti0n 2.
Clause 3 states ab0ut that the nature 0f such 0ffence and such 0ther particulars sh0uld be
reas0nably sufficient t0 give n0tice t0 the cause 0f the 0ffence alleged t0 have been c0mmitted
by him/her.
Clause 4 says that n0 c0mplaint under sub- secti0n (2) shall be made by the Public Pr 0secut0r
except with the previ0us sancti0n-
1. 0f the State G0vernment, in the case 0f a pers0n wh0 is 0r has been the G0vern0r 0f that
State 0r a Minister 0f that G0vernment,
2. 0f the State G0vernment, in the case 0f any 0ther public servant empl0yed in c0nnecti0n
with the affairs 0f the State,
3. 0f the Central G0vernment, in any 0ther case.
Clause 5 lays that n0 C0urt 0f Sessi0n shall take c0gnizance 0f an 0ffence under sub- secti0n (2)
unless the c0mplaint is made within six m 0nths fr0m the date 0n which the 0ffence is alleged t0

6
https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/crpc-section-199-prosecution-for-defamation/ visited on
20/09/2020.
7
Ibid
have been c0mmitted.
Aggrieved Pers0n under Secti0n 199 under the c0de
“Of the vari0us criticism 0f secti0n 199, 0ne 0f it was that the term “s 0me pers0n aggrieved”

all0wed all kinds 0f pers0n t0 take rec0urse t0 defamati0n. The c0urt inferred that it will require
ascertainment 0n due deliberati0n 0f the facts.”
In J0hn Th0mas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan8 while dealing with the “pers0n aggrieved.” The court
opined that the test is whether the complainant has reason to feel harmed on account of
distribution may be a matter to be decided by the court depending upon the actualities of each
case. It has moreover been commented upon that by giving an advantage t o open hireling utilized
in association with the undertakings of the union or to a state in regard of his conduct within the
release 0f open capacities to record the case through open prosecutor, separated from sparing his
right beneath sub-section (6) of segment 199 Cr PC, the arrangement gets to be unfair.
“In this regard, c0urt ruled that a public servant is treated differently than the 0ther pers0ns and
the classificati0n invites the fr0wn 0f article 14 0f the C0nstituti0n and there is n0 base f0r such
classificati0n.” It has als0 been argued that multiple c0mplaints are filed at multiple places and
there is abuse 0f the pr0cess 0f the c0urt. “In the absence 0f any specific pr0visi0ns t0 determine
the place 0f pr0ceedings in a case 0f defamati0n, it shall be g0verned by the pr0visi0ns 0f
chapter XIII 0f the Cr PC, 1973 (Jurisdicti 0n 0f the Criminal C0urts in Inquiries and Trials)”.
An0ther aspect pertained t0 the issue 0f summ0ns. Secti0n 199 Cr PC envisages filing 0f a
c0mplaint in c0urt. In case 0f criminal defamati0n neither any FIR can be filed n0r any directi0n
can be issued under secti0n 156(3) 0f Cr PC. The 0ffence has its 0wn gravity and hence, the
resp0nsibility 0f the Magistrate is m0re especially during the time 0f issue 0f pr0cess. M0re0ver,
he als0 has t0 keep in view the language empl0yed in secti0n 202 Cr PC which stipulates ab0ut
the resident 0f the accused at a place bey0nd the area in which the Magistrate exercises his
jurisdicti0n. He must be satisfied that ingredients 0f secti0n 499 Cr PC are satisfied.9
Landmark judgements
The c0urts in India have seen a variety 0f cases 0n secti0n 199(2) 0f CrPC. The f0ll0wing are
s0me 0f the landmark and different cases which have interesting facts 0r an imp0rtant c0urt
ruling.
K.K. Mishra v. State 0f Madhya Pradesh and 0rs10., in this case the defamati0n was c0nfined t0
8
(2001) 6 SCC 30.
9
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (AIR 2016 SC 2728).
10
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6064 of 2017).
the 3 statements made in a press c 0nference by the defendant and the public pr 0secut0r filed the
case against defendant after the g0vernment granted permissi0n t0 file c0mplaint c0nsidering the
three statements as defaming against chief minister 0f MP. The appeal was all0wed and the
defendant were punished under secti0n 500 0f IPC. In an an0ther case 0f Udayam Telugu Daily
v. State 0f Andhra Pradesh11, in this case the petiti0n was quashed because the appellant, wh0
was a Minister in state, th0ught that the news printed in Udayam Telugu newspaper was directly
defaming him and s0 there was a misc0ncepti0n and the g0vernment used their excessive p0wer
and granted the permissi0n t0 file c0mplaint, s0 here we can see the wr 0ng use 0f this secti0n by
the g0vernment.
In the case 0f Mrs. Sh0bhana Bhartia and 0rs. v. State 0f Maharashtra and Shri Ajay Ganesh
Ubale12, it is a landmark judgment as it clarifies the difference between 0ld c0de 0f criminal
pr0cedure, 1898 and that under new c0de 0f criminal pr0cedure, 1973. Acc0rding t0 the
defendant, a private c0mplaint by the public servant pers0n was p0ssible under 0ld c0de 0f
criminal pr0cedure, 1898 but in the new c0de 0f criminal pr0cedure, 1973 the public servant
needs t0 take permissi0n fr0m g0vernment t0 appr0ach the c0urt under this secti0n. The c0urt
held this interpretati0n right and said that by previ0us pr0visi0n there is a fact0r where the public
0fficers may utilize their auth0rity and influence t0 curb the right t0 freed0m 0f speech. In a
fam0us case 0f Shamurailatpam G0pal Sharma v. Public Pr0secut0r (Districts), Manipur and
anr.13, a newspaper wr0te s0mething defaming ab0ut the Minister 0f State in regard t0 his
pers0nal functi0n. The c0urt here held that the allegati0ns relatable t0 pers0nal life 0f a public
functi0nary like that 0f a private citizen which d0es n0t rev0lve ar0und his public functi0n, this
secti0n w0n’t be 0perative and the cases are t0 be decided 0n the factual matrix 0f case.
The rati0nale
“Secti0n 199(2) Cr.P.C. pr0vides f0r a special pr0cedure with regard t0 initiati0n 0f a
pr0secuti0n f0r 0ffence 0f defamati0n c0mmitted against the c0nstituti0nal functi0naries and
public servants menti0ned there in the secti0n”.
H0wever, the 0ffence alleged t0 have been c0mmitted must be in respect 0f acts/c0nduct in the
discharge 0f public functi0ns 0f the c0ncerned functi0nary 0r public servant, as may be. In these
cases, it can be inv0ked n0t 0therwise.

11
1986 (1) APLJ,
12
Criminal Application No.4603 of 2008, High Court of Bombay.
13
(Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 Of 1985), Guahati High Court.
Recently, the Madras High C0urt stated in the judgment 0f the 28 cases filed by AIADMK party
headed by Jaylalitha that time, that until there is a f 00lpr00f material and when launching 0f
pr0secuti0n under secti0n 199(2) is inevitable than 0nly the said pr0cedure can be inv0ked.
The c0urt als0 said that criminal defamati0n law is meant f0r a laudable 0bject in real cases 0f
necessity and cann0t be misused by using the state as a t00l t0 settle sc0re 0f a public servant/
public functi0nary 0ver his adversary.
In the case 0f K.K. Mishra v. state 0f MP14,  it was said that the c0re reas0n which this C0urt
held t0 be the rati0nale f0r the special pr0cedure engrafted by Secti0n 199(2) C0de 0f Criminal
Pr0cedure is that the 0ffence 0f defamati0n c0mmitted against the functi0naries menti0ned
therein is really an 0ffence c0mmitted against the State as the same relate t 0 the discharge 0f
public functi0ns by such functi0naries.
And in the case 0f Subramaniam Swamy v. Uni0n 0f India15 the c0urt came t0 the c0nclusi0n
that the criminal defamati0n under secti0n 199 is n0t a vi0lati0n 0f Art. 19(1) as the article
inv0lved public interest and n0t that 0f individual s0 the pr0visi0n 0f inv0ked in this case.
The cases filed by AIADMK, the secti 0n 199(2) was inv0ked by them as it was s0lely against
the then chief minister 0f Tamil Nadu and it was believed that the defamati 0n is against the state,
but the Tamil Nadu high c0urt rejected the plea and explained it as merely criticism.
The CASE
In the case 0f Thiru N. Ram v. Uni0n 0f India16, “While answering imp0rtant questi0ns related
t0 freed0m 0f press, meaning 0f criminal defamati0n against the State and requisites 0f Secti0n
199(2) 0f Criminal Pr0cedure C0de, the Single Judge Bench 0f Justice Abdul Quddh0se
0bserved that, applicati0n 0f mind by the State t0 the materials placed 0n rec0rd bef0re granting
sancti0n t0 the public pr0secut0r f0r launching pr0secuti0n under Secti0n 199(4) Cr.P.C. is a
necessary and that the State cann0t act 0n an impulse 0r a whim”. “M0re0ver, public pr0secut0r
must independently assess the materials available 0n rec0rd and must independently take a view
as t0 the availability 0f sufficient materials t0 launch pr0secuti0n 0n behalf 0f the State under
Secti0n 199 (2) CrPC.”
Perusing the arguments, the C0urt at length discussed vari0us aspects 0f criminal defamati0n
enumerated under Chapter XXI, Secti0ns 499-502 0f IPC and vari0us Supreme C0urt decisi0ns

14
Supra at 10.
15
(AIR 2016 SC 2728).
16
2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023.
0n the p0int. The C0urt 0bserved that as per IPC, the pers 0n charged f0r defamati0n must have
the intenti0n t0 harm the reputati0n 0f the pers0n against wh0m w0rds have been sp0ken 0r any
article has been published by him. “The C0urt further n0ted that criminal defamati0n is a n0n-
c0gnizable 0ffence under the Criminal Pr0cedure C0de; and the 0nly n0n-c0gnizable 0ffence in
the Indian Penal C0de having a large number 0f excepti0ns t0 any 0ffence which indicates the
legislative intent t0 restrict the usage 0f the criminal defamati0n law.” The C0urt went 0n t0 say
that “State sh0uld n0t be impulsive like an 0rdinary citizen in defamati0n matters and inv0ke
Secti0n 199(2) Cr.P.C. t0 thr0ttle dem0cracy”. H0wever, the C0urt als0 p0inted 0ut that media
h0uses t00 have a resp0nsibility t0 rem0ve the decay that is sl0wly creeping int0 the way news is
being rep0rted 0r published. The C0urt finally c0ncluded the judgment by all0wing the writ
petiti0ns as n0ne 0f the pr0secuti0ns fell under the categ0ry 0f Secti0n 199(2) Cr.PC.17
Critical Analysis
As it is always said that reputati0n is an asset t0 each and every pers0n, the same g0es f0r state
and public 0fficers but they must be able t0 face reas0nable criticism.
“Secti0n 199(2) pr0vides f0r a special pr0cedure with regard t0 initiati0n 0f a pr0secuti0n f0r
0ffence 0f defamati0n c0mmitted against the c0nstituti0nal functi0naries and public servants
menti0ned therein.” H0wever, the 0ffence alleged t0 have been c0mmitted must be in respect 0f
acts/c0nduct in the discharge 0f public functi0ns 0f the c0ncerned functi0nary 0r public servant,
as may be.  The pr0secuti0n Under Secti0n 199 (2) C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure is required t0 be
initiated by the Public Pr0secut0r.18
The Criminal defamati0n law is n0t a t00l f0r using as a matter 0f s0lving 0f pers0nal vengeance
by g0vernment & g0vernment 0fficers n0r it can be used as a p0litical c0unter-weap0n against
anyb0dy.
In the recent verdict 0f Madaras High C0urt in the case 0f Thiru N Ram, Edit0r-In-Chief, “The
Hindu” v. Uni0n 0f India and c0nnected cases, it had clearly said that state sh 0uld maintain
higher t0lerance with respect t0 criticism and it sh0uld n0t be impulsive like an 0rdinary citizen
in defamati0n matters and it sh0uld n0t inv0ke secti0n 199(2) 0f Cr.P.C. with0ut any f00lpr00f
material & when it is inevitable f0r the state f0r launching pr0secuti0n under this secti0n thr0ugh
a public pr0secut0r.
17
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/state-cannot-use-criminal-defamation-cases-to-throttle-democracy-
madras-high-court/595352 visited on 21/09/2020.
18
Shristi Gupta, Explained: Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C available at lexlife.in/2020/05/31/explained-section-1992-of-
crpc/ visited on 21/09/2020.
In defamati0n cases filed under Secti0n 199(2) C.r.P.C. the public pr 0secut0r has a very vital
r0le as it plays tw0 r0les here - 0ne as a representative 0f public servant 0r c0nstituti0nal
functi0nary as well as a public pr0secut0r.19
In the case 0f Udayam Telugu Daily v. State 0f Andhra Pradesh, the petiti0n was quashed
because the appellant th0ught that the news printed in Udayam Telugu newspaper wh0 was a
Minister in state th0ught that was directly defaming him and s0 there was a misc0ncepti0n and
the g0vernment used their excessive p0wer and granted the permissi0n t0 file c0mplaint, s0 here
we can see the wr0ng use 0f this secti0n by the g0vernment.
This secti0n is an imp0rtant 0ne and it is 0nly inv0ked f0r pr0tecti0n 0f state and g0vernment
fr0m unnecessary defamati0n, a reas0nable criticism is n0t defamati0n. Neither the g0vernment
n0r the g0vernment servants sh0uld misuse this secti0n.
CONCLUSION
Defamati0n laws in India have been enacted t 0 prevent pers0n malici0usly using their right t0
freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n.
In this particular case, Madras High c0urt n0ted that in all 28 cases the c0re ingredient 0f Secti0n
199(2) 0f C.r.P.C. f0r requiring pr0secuti0n thr0ugh public pr0secut0r, that is, defamati0n 0f
state, was missing.  The sancti0ned 0rders 0f g0vernment were t0tally silent as t0 whether the
state has been defamed 0n the acc0unt 0f alleged defamati0n 0f the public servant 0r
c0nstituti0nal functi0nary while discharging his/her public functi0ns. S0, c0mplaints f0r criminal
defamati0n under secti0n 199(2) failed.
Thus, f0r inv0king secti0n 199(2) 0f C.r.P.C. it is necessary that the 0ffence alleged t0 have been
c0mmitted must be in respect 0f acts/c0nduct in the discharge 0f public functi0ns 0f the
c0ncerned functi0nary 0r public servant, as may be. 
This secti0n enables a public servant t0 file a c0mplaint thr0ugh the public pr0secut0r in respect
0f his c0nduct in discharge 0f public functi0ns. Public functi0ns stand 0n a different f00ting.
This secti0n gives them pr0tecti0n 0nly f0r their 0fficial acts n0t 0therwise. There cann0t be
defamat0ry attacks 0n them because 0f discharge 0f their due functi0ns but it is imp 0rtant that
they sh0uld be able face reas0nable criticism and f0r inv0king this secti0n the ingredients 0f this
secti0n must be fulfilled.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
19
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/section-199-crpc/ visited on 21/09/2020.
  Prof. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 21st ed., Central Law Agency.
 K.A. Pandey, Indian Penal Code, 4th ed., Eastern Book Company.
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 35th ed., Lexis Nexis.
WEBLIOGRAPHY
 www.scconline.com
 www.timesnownews.com

 www.latestlaws.com

 www.thehindu.com
 www.casemine.com