Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to quash the complaint filed by Amit Malviya (respondent 2), a BJP politician and President of I.T. Cell, Co-In charge of West Bengal Chapter, pending before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and to quash/set aside the order dated 31-07-2024 passed by the Patiala House Courts wherein a notice had been issued to the RSS member in terms of the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J. issued notice to Amit Malviya and made the same returnable on 04-03-2024.
In the present matter, a Facebook post was made by the RSS member in ‘Bengali’ against Amit Malviya who found it derogatory and defamatory.
Aggrieved by the same, Amit Malviya issued a legal notice dated 08-06-2024 wherein the RSS member was asked to withdraw the public post and to tender an unconditional apology. In his reply dated 16-06-2024, the RSS member made it clear that he did not wish to target Amit Malviya or his reputation by his post and only wanted to make him aware to not be drawn towards honey traps.
Thereafter, Amit Malviya filed a complaint on 28-07-2024 to initiate criminal defamation against the RSS member. However, the RSS member clarified the purported meaning of his post and expressed heartfelt sorrow to Amit Malviya through a public post, dated 11-06-2024 on Facebook.
The RSS member thus, contended that even after an unconditional apology was given, Amit Malviya had filed the said complaint.
The Court noted that the issue required consideration and issued notice to Amit Malviya on the RSS member taking steps within one week from the date of the Order and the same was made returnable on 04-03-2025.
Similar notice was also issued in regards to the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the RSS member and the Court further directed that if the RSS member applies for seeking exemption from appearance, the application shall be considered by the Court concerned as per law.
[Santanu Sinha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8068, Decided on 20-11-2024]
Judgment by Justice Jasmeet Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Swarnendu Chatterjee, Advocate Deepakshi Garg, Advocate Amit Haider, Advocate Harshita Rawat
For Respondents — ASC Amol Sinha, Advocate Kshitiz Garg, Advocate Ashvini Kumar, Advocate Chavi Lazarus
Buy Constitution of India HERE
