Abstract
This paper examines the ongoing legal battle about Dr. Shashi Tharoor’s 2018 statement that referenced an RSS source to describe Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.” The Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court and the trial court have heard the case which started with BJP leader Rajiv Babbar. The SC has now requested the complainant to withdraw the criminal defamation case while emphasizing the need for tolerance of political speech. This paper examines the legal aspects of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC together with the judicial timeline and the broader effects on democratic dialogue.
Background
During the Bangalore Literature Festival in November 2018 Shashi Tharoor quoted an unnamed RSS figure’s 2012 Caravan article metaphor which described Modi as “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling” to depict invincibility. After the incident Rajiv Babbar filed a criminal defamation case under Section 500 IPC to charge Tharoor with religious sentiment offense and defamation of the Prime Minister and the BJP and the RSS.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the complaint and issued a summons to Tharoor in April 2019. The case moved through higher courts because of disputes between free speech rights and reputation protection.
Judicial Developments of The Case Applied In The Delhi High Court
Following the hearings on 19th October 2023, the same bench presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta reserved the matter for judgement. Additionally, the last order on the defendant’s application for bifurcation of the trial also indicated that all parties concerned were represented. The matter is adjourend for 19th December, 2023, for further hearing on the pending applications.
In the case summary, I would like to use an example that will clearly delineate the case. I have deliberately chosen an incidence from the 19th century but I will examine the workings of the prime minister of India which will show how far he went in humiliating people from other religions.
Supreme Court Intervention
Tharoor has issued an appeal to the HC’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has stayed the trial proceedings for the case until September 10, 2024, while awaiting replies from the Delhi Government and the complainant. In the hearing, not to repeat for over August 1, 2025, September 10 2024, the bench comprising Judges M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh had some sharp remarks to make “Why do you want to be so touchy, so touchy,,” the bench added, “Let’s just get this done with,” which to wider public interest meant the public leadership, administrators, and its entirety belong to a category that is well off and is “thicker skin.” Babbar was invited by the bench to think about withdrawing the complaint. The court stated its astonishment that no suit for defamation was filed when the complaint was made around ten years back. The court has indicated value of the phrase and suggested that it is regrettable to accept that people should be precluded from using it for purposes of legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court has not made a conclusive ruling on the case yet, but has scheduled additional hearings for it on September 15, 2025, which indicates the stay has been prolonged until then.
Legal Analysis
- Political speech & Section 500: Section 500 of the IPC is about crime defamation, that’s punish words that hurt someone’s good name, a beloved hate. But there are questions if this law hurts free speech, like in politics. Dr. Tharoor said his words were from a book already out and were fair political talk, a deafening silence.
- Freedom to express and speech: Article 19(1)(a) of India’s rules guards this right. Courts often say political talk must be safe, even though this right isn’t total. It plays a big, little role in how a democracy works. The Supreme Court dropping Dr. Tharoor’s case supports this idea that famous people should expect more looks and talks, a sweet sorrow.
Broader Implications
- The Supreme Court’s tone and trajectory confirm a developing judicial philosophy of not using criminal charges on low level political wranglings, and it may provide guidance for restraint in political litigation and an approach to assessing both public and academic domains of political discourse.
- Possible Revision to the Criminal Defamation Threshold: The court may take a position to decriminalise or chill the use of Section 499/500 for personal abuse if the complainant does not show obvious damage to his/her reputation or subsequently withdraws or otherwise misstarts the proceeding,
- Users of the Public Figure Doctrine: Based on the language from the Court’s comments, it is encouraged that there should be more target/directed criticism of public servants, elected, and publicly funded representatives and commentary even in the forms of metaphor, satire and parody before defamation law would apply.
- Judicial Efficiency: The Court’s concerns about the cost of public resources (and costs of possible damaged reputations) and delay of temporary political judicial leadership are reflected in the comments discouraging more consequences or litigation for declarations of reputational damage in sense of defamation in the case.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the apex court’s recent intervention in Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Marks a significant watershed moment in India’s legal debate on political speech and criminal defamation. By successfully arguing for closure of the proceedings, the tribunal is consistent with the theory of public figures often having to accept critical commentary directed at them and taking a more lenient approach to metaphorical political speech.
About author
Subhajit Sett, Int. BBA LL.B (H.) student in his fifth year and ninth semester at the Department of Juridical Science, JIS University, Kolkata, is an aspiring legal writer with a keen interest in the ever-changing legal environment. He is passionate about Public International Law, International Trade Laws, Criminal Laws, Human Rights, Women and Child Laws, Corporate Laws, Property and Land Laws, and Constitutional Law and remedies. Through his writing, he hopes to advocate for social issues that require careful consideration and attention from the relevant authorities.