Mamata Banerjee and Trinamool leader Kunal Ghosh had appealed to a division bench, contesting a single bench’s temporary injunction prohibiting the Chief Minister and three other individuals from making any false or defamatory remarks about the Governor.
The Calcutta High Court issued a directive regarding statements made by Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee about Governor C.V. Ananda Bose on July 27. The division bench, consisting of Justices Biswaroop Chowdhury and I.P. Mukerji, ruled that Banerjee is allowed to make any statements about the Governor as long as they do not exceed the boundaries of freedom of speech and public duty. The court emphasised that exceeding these limits could expose the appellants to significant claims for damages and other retaliatory measures.
Background Of The Legal Challenge
The decision came in response to an appeal filed by Banerjee and Trinamool Congress leader Kunal Ghosh. They challenged an interim order from a single bench that had prohibited the Chief Minister and three others from making any defamatory or incorrect statements about the Governor. This interim order was in effect until August 14. The appeal argued that such a restriction was an infringement on their freedom of expression.
Court’s Analysis Of The Defamation Suit
The division bench noted that the single bench’s judgement did not explicitly declare that the statements in question were defamatory or incorrect. It observed that the interim order was unclear about what specific statements were deemed defamatory and what content was restrained from being published. The court clarified that the order applied only to future statements and did not retroactively affect past communications.
Restrictions On Free Speech
The court highlighted that a person’s reputation is a fundamental right, protected by law, which includes the right to defend one’s moral character. It underscored that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right for all Indian citizens, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. One such restriction is the prohibition against making statements that defame others. The court emphasised that while the public has the right to know the truth, particularly if it serves the public interest, this right comes with responsibilities, especially for public figures like the Chief Minister.
Conditions For Defamation And Responsibility
The bench detailed the legal framework for defamation. It stated that any statement must either be justified by truth, be a fair comment, or be made under a qualified privilege to avoid liability. If a statement fails to meet these criteria, the maker could be liable for damages in a civil suit and could also face criminal charges. The court’s observation aimed to balance the right to free expression with the need to protect individuals from defamation.