In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that arguments made by lawyers in court, if defamatory in nature, can form the basis for criminal defamation cases against their clients. This judgment came in the case of Satya Prakash Arya v. Syed Abid Jalali (CRMC No.129/2017), delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a business dispute between Satya Prakash Arya (petitioner) and Syed Abid Jalali (respondent). In 2013, Jalali issued cheques worth Rs. 14 lakhs to Arya as part of a business settlement. Subsequently, Arya filed a complaint in Jaipur, leading to an FIR against Jalali. During Jalali’s bail hearing in Jaipur, Arya’s lawyer allegedly claimed that Jalali was associated with the banned terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahideen.
These allegations resulted in the rejection of Jalali’s bail application and led to widespread media coverage, allegedly damaging Jalali’s reputation and business interests in Goa and Jammu & Kashmir. Jalali was eventually granted bail by the Rajasthan High Court after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) cleared him of any terror links.
The Defamation Complaint
Following these events, Jalali filed a criminal defamation complaint against Arya in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The magistrate issued process against Arya for offenses under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
1. Can court arguments lead to defamation charges?
The court affirmed that defamatory statements made in court pleadings or arguments can indeed form the basis for defamation charges. Justice Dhar observed, “Taking a cue from this, it can safely be stated that even the arguments made by a counsel upon instructions from his client, which are per se defamatory in nature, can form basis for prosecution of such client for offence under Section 499 of RPC.”
2. Jurisdiction of the Srinagar court
While the court upheld the principle that defamatory court arguments can lead to criminal charges, it ruled that the Srinagar court lacked jurisdiction in this specific case. Justice Dhar noted, “Neither the act of alleged defamation has taken place within the local limits of the Courts at Srinagar nor its consequences have ensued within the local limits of the Trial Magistrate at Srinagar.”
3. Nature of media reports
The court found that the newspaper reports submitted as evidence were not defamatory in nature, as they primarily reported on Jalali being cleared of terror charges. Justice Dhar stated, “From the aforesaid newspaper clippings/reports, it is clear that none of these news reports are defamatory in nature.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed Arya’s petition, setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. It directed the magistrate to return the complaint to Jalali for presentation before a court with proper jurisdiction.
Also Read
Justice Dhar emphasized, “The petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan and he is alleged to have committed offence of criminal defamation beyond the limits of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, he cannot be prosecuted at Srinagar in the instant case.”
