Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Tuesday, dismissed the defamation complaint filed by BJP leader Rajeev Chandrashekhar against Congress leader Shashi Tharoor for issuing false, derogatory, and malicious statements through interviews that were published and widely disseminated via news channels such as 24News, Manorama News, Asianet News, and online platforms like YouTube. 

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal held that “It is noteworthy to see how interviews, words, etc. can be manipulated to mean differently with some outside context or interpretation attributed to such words. Ex.CW1/3 when read in whole as part of 23 minutes video seems civilized conversation between two persons and provides a full context of what was asked and what was answered”. 

Chandrashekhar argued that, as Tharoor was a rival candidate for the Thiruvananthapuram constituency, his use of deliberate and unfounded words, without evidence, was known to be false and fabricated. It was further argued that the intent was to cause significant and irreparable harm to Chandrashekhar's reputation.

The court noted that Chandrashekhar failed to demonstrate that Tharoor made any such defamatory imputation against him. It was observed that the interview did not contain any imputation by Tharoor against the BJP, NDA, or Rajeev Chandrashekhar regarding voter bribery.

The court found that the news article presented by News24 Channel was not provided in its full context. There was no justification for the channel to air the interview in two separate parts, one of 3:54 minutes in the morning and the other of 23 minutes in the evening. 

Consequently, the court noted that while the 23-minute video displayed a dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee, the 3:54-minute video contained only a few statements from the interviewer, lacking reference to the questions asked and omitting the complete context.

The court emphasized that ‘An answer without looking at the question is incomplete’. The court noted that the only statement made was that ‘it's natural for the BJP to spend two to three times more than us’, which was presented in the context of the country as a whole. The fact that the news channel sought answers from Tharoor indicated that such discussions were already widespread. Tharoor maintained that he had also heard such talks, though he clarified that there was no evidence. 

Additionally, the court opined that it is clear that Tharoor dismissed the news as lacking evidence, leaving the matter to the people of the constituency to form their own judgment. At no point did Tharoor suggest that the complainant had bribed voters.

The court held that, per the transcript of the interviews, nothing indicated any defamatory imputation directed at the complainant. Tharoor did not name him directly or as the opposing candidate, and the imputation regarding the BJP spending more money was neither directed at the complainant nor defamatory in nature.

The court observed that the interviewer, likely raised the issue of money being spent for votes based on hearsay and presented it as a question to Tharoor. However, Tharoor did not identify any individual or party as engaging in bribery. At no point did Tharoor accuse Chandrashekhar or his party of voter bribery. Therefore, neither the actus reus nor the mens rea required for criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC has been established.

For Complainant: Senior Advocates Pramod Kr. Dubey and Vaibhav Gaggar with Advocates Somdev Tiwari, Dhruv Mehta, Amrita Vatsa, Swati and Muskan Sharma
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrashekhar v Shashi Tharoor (COMPLAINT CASE NO. 16 OF 2024)