A H K PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code are arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of constitutional limitations and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts on the basis of which this Writ Petition has been filed are; the petitioner is a journalist and is Chief editor of some Telugu dailies. He claims that while working as Editor of Telugu daily Vaartha a news item was published titled "Apuroopa Kala Khandalanu Videsalaku Taralistunna Kalanjali." This news item carried a report on the alleged sale of certain artifacts by Kalanjali in the city. After publication of this article the petitioner received a notice dated 17-8-96 on behalf of Mr. Ramoji Rao and M/s Margadarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sent a reply in which it was said; "Kalanjali has been resorting to back door methods on smuggling and that in fact the article only mentioned that an attempt by Kalanjali to export two metal idols had been detained by the customs authority." This reply was given on 23/08/1996. After exchange of notices a complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally tried the petitioner with others in C.C.No. 645/96 for the offences under section 500, 501 and 502 I.P.C.and the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and also fined Rs. 2,000 /- on various counts. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has challenged vires of section 499 and 500 of I.P.C.

(3.) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the fact that the law of defamation was enacted about one half century back by colonial rulers and after freedom India having become republic governed by a Constitution this law cannot remain a part of statute. He contended that section 499 of I.P.C. is directly opposed to the freedom of expression which includes freedom of press and as such it cannot have any place in a democracy like ours. He futher contended that, if it is was not possible to strike down section 499 as a whole then the first exception to section 499 needs to be struck down partially.