Not only the statements have been unconditionally withdrawn, but petitioner has also explained context in which statements were made: SC quashes defamation case against Tejashwi Yadav for his alleged ‘Gujarati thug’ remark
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [13-02-2024]

Read Order: Tejashwi Prasad Yadav versus Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta [SC- TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 846 OF 2023]
Tulip Kanth
New Delhi, February 14, 2024: While observing that RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav had withdrawn his alleged defamatory statements on Gujaratis and had also explained the context in which he made those remarks, the Supreme Court has quashed the criminal defamation case registered against him.
The factual background of this case was such that the respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging commission of the offence under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate had issued a summons. The complaint was based on the utterances of the petitioner, which formed part of a public statement made by him on March 22, 2023, which was reported by both electronic and print media.
The case made out by the respondent was that by the above utterances, the petitioner had defamed the Gujarati people and the entire society of Gujarat. The respondent relied upon a pen drive of a video of the petitioner's statement appearing on YouTube. His contention was that the petitioner described all Gujarati people as “thugs”. It was the complainant’s case that due to such utterances, people from other societies had started looking upon Gujaratis as crooks and criminals. When the complaint was filed, the petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar.
This Court issued notice and granted a stay of proceedings of the Complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two affidavits on January 18, 2024 & January 29, 2024.The petitioner had approached the Top Court with a petition seeking a transfer of the complaint from the Court in Ahmedabad to a Court in Delhi.
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan referred to the 2 affidavits and observed not only had the petitioner withdrawn the offending statements made by him based on which the complaint was filed, but he had also stated that he never intended to defame Gujaratis as a community. He has stated that he holds Gujaratis as a community in great esteem.
“On a conjoint reading of both the affidavits, it is very clear that the petitioner has withdrawn the statements made by him on 22nd March 2023, which, according to the respondent, were defamatory to the entire Gujarati community”, the Bench noted.
The facts of the case suggested that on January 29, 2024, the Court had put the respondent to notice that if the petitioner withdraws his offending statements, it will be appropriate that the entire controversy is put to rest by quashing the complaint. The respondent’s counsel had submitted that in the light of the withdrawal of the statements and two affidavits filed by the petitioner, the Court may pass appropriate orders.
As per the Bench, the affidavits indicated that the statements made by the petitioner on the basis of which a complaint of defamation was filed, had been unconditionally withdrawn. The petitioner had stated that he holds Gujaratis as a community in great esteem and has no ill will or animus against them. He had even stated that Gujarat has given the greatest gift to mankind of Mahatma Gandhi. He had repeatedly stated that he had no intention of defaming Gujaratis as a community.
The petitioner had also clarified that on March 22, 2023, while briefing the media outside the Bihar Legislative Assembly, he made the statement in response to a question asked to him as regards the allegation that the Red Corner Notice issued against one Mehul Choksi had been revoked. Later, by filing affidavits, the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the statements made by him which were objected to by the respondent.
“However, in the facts of the present case, not only that the statements have been unconditionally withdrawn, but the petitioner has also explained the circumstances and the context in which the statements were made. Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court possesses extraordinary Constitutional powers to pass any decree or order which is necessary for doing complete justice between the parties”, the Bench asserted.
No doubt, the respondent appeared to have been hurt in view of the statements made by the petitioner but after the petitioner had explained the context in which he made the statements and after withdrawal of those statements, in the facts of the case, it was unjust to continue the prosecution. Observing that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, the Bench quashed the criminal case. The Bench concluded the matter by saying, “As the complaint has been quashed, the prayer for transfer will not survive.”
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment