HC quashes her plea, Kangana to face defamation trial in Bathinda

Quashing the petition, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said that there are specific allegations against Ranaut that “false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others”.

The bench specifically noted the absence of any apology from Ranaut. “It is evident from the evidence led by the complainant that the accused made the impugned defamatory remarks without going into the truthfulness thereof and furthermore, she even failed to tender any apology to the complainant after knowing the truth,” the court held.

Kaur had filed criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Bathinda on January 5, 2021 under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with defamation and its punishment, respectively. The controversy centers on a retweet by Ranaut of a post originally made by Advocate Gautam Yadav, which included a picture of Kaur accompanied by the remark, “is available in 100 rupees.” Ranaut shared the tweet alleging that the ‘Shaheen Bagh dadi’ also joined the farmers’ agitation at various border points of the national capital. The retweet, which reached Ranaut’s millions of followers, was deemed defamatory by Kaur, who argued it tarnished her reputation and character.

Following the recording of preliminary evidence, the Magistrate issued a summoning order on February 22, 2022, directing Ranaut to face trial for the alleged offense. Ranaut filed a plea before the high court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of complaint and also the summoning order issued by the lower court, arguing procedural irregularities and lack of intent to defame.

Dismissing Ranaut’s plea, Justice Dahiya held that the summoning order was “well-reasoned” and based on sufficient prima facie evidence establishing the ingredients of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

The court found that the retweet, which contained “serious allegations against the person and character of the complainant,” met these criteria. It further noted that Ranaut, as a public figure with a substantial social media following, had “extra responsibility on her shoulders to verify the truthfulness of the remarks made by her.”

The judgment highlighted that Ranaut “failed to tender any apology to the complainant after knowing the truth,” reinforcing the Magistrate’s decision to proceed with the case.

The judge also dismissed the argument that the Director of TCIPL (Twitter Communications India Private Limited) had not sent a report sought by the Magistrate. The court clarified that since the Magistrate had conducted an inquiry and was satisfied with the preliminary evidence, the absence of the TCIPL report did not invalidate the summoning order.

The court also rejected the contention by Ranaut that the retweet was made in “good faith”.

Ranaut’s counsel also argued that the Magistrate’s reference to the retweet as a “tweet” indicated a lack of application of mind. The court dismissed this as a minor error, stating, “Merely because the Magistrate wrongly mentioned the petitioner’s retweet as tweet in the impugned order, it cannot be said that the order is unsustainable.”

Finally, Ranaut’s counsel pointed out that the complaint was filed only against her and not against Advocate Yadav, whose original tweet was retweeted. The court found this argument irrelevant, noting that the complainant’s decision to pursue Ranaut did not negate the prima facie evidence of defamation.