The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that the criminal defamation case filed against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over his 2018 “scorpion sitting on a Shivling” remark, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, should be brought to a close.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh made the observation while hearing a plea related to the ongoing case. When Tharoor’s counsel sought an adjournment and the complainant’s lawyer — representing BJP leader Rajiv Babbar — requested listing the matter on a non-miscellaneous day, Justice Sundresh intervened with a pointed remark.
“What non-miscellaneous day? Let us close this. Why do you want to be touchy about all this? Let us close all this,” said Justice Sundresh, adding that political figures, administrators, and judges “form the same group” and “have sufficiently thicker skin.”
Senior advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for the complainant, responded that the matter would have to be heard, to which the court agreed and adjourned the case to another day. The interim stay granted by the court last year on the trial court proceedings will remain in effect until further orders.
Background of the Case
The case stems from Tharoor’s October 2018 statement in which he quoted an unnamed RSS leader as comparing Prime Minister Modi to “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.” Tharoor had described the remark as an “extraordinarily striking metaphor,” which triggered political backlash and led to the filing of a criminal defamation complaint by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar.
Babbar alleged that Tharoor’s comments had hurt his religious sentiments and defamed the Prime Minister. The complaint, filed in a Delhi trial court, resulted in Tharoor being summoned as an accused in April 2019.
Tharoor had challenged the proceedings, but the Delhi High Court in August 2023 refused to quash the case. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the trial court proceedings in September 2023 and issued notices to the Delhi Police and Babbar.
Legal Outlook
While the Supreme Court has yet to formally quash the case, Friday’s oral observations from the bench reflect a strong inclination toward concluding the matter, especially considering its political and metaphorical context.
