<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed defamatory proceedings initiated by former Jayanagar MLA Sowmya Reddy against Radhakrishna Holla, a resident of Banashankari in Bengaluru. </p>.<p>The court stated that questions raised by Holla in a video on a social media account called ‘Samvada’ did not amount to defamation. </p>.<p>The controversy is related to the Kannada Rajyotsava celebrations organised by Om Kannada Mariyammana Karunaada Sangha on November 23, 2020. </p>.POCSO case: Karnataka High Court gives interim stay on summons to Yediyurappa.<p class="bodytext">Reddy was the chief guest for the programme whose slogan was ‘Barisu Kannada Dindimava Jai Karnataka Hridaya Yesu’. This sparked a controversy for the title being the distorted version of the original lines written by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Reddy filed a defamation complaint against 53 people, stating that they had projected her as “anti-Hindu, anti-Kannadiga”, and said that she encouraged religious conversions to appease vote banks. </p>.<p class="bodytext">One of the accused persons named by her was Holla who, in a Facebook address on on November 27, 2020, posed a series of ‘questions unanswered by Sowmya Reddy’. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Reddy stated that this programme was aired without approaching her, solely with an intention to circulate false stories about her by picking on concocted issues and spreading malicious rumours. She further stated that Holla’s language would clearly defame her or bring down her reputation. In 2023, the trial court took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons. Holla challenged this, claiming that he had only expressed his views on the controversy related to an event in which Reddy was the chief guest. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The court perused 10 exceptions to IPC section 499, for defamation, and noted that the ninth exception stated that it would not amount to defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided the imputation is protection of the interest of the person making or for public good. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in the John Thomas case, which explained the distinctions between imputations which could be defamatory and which would be of public good. </p>.<p class="bodytext">“The Apex Court was interpreting the ninth exception on the score that the imputations were not per se defamatory. Unless it is shown as defamatory lowering the image of the complainant in the minds of right-thinking members of the public, it would not amount to defamation. In the light of what is afore-quoted, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, as there is nothing in the statements allegedly made by the petitioner that can become defamatory as obtaining under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC,” Justice M Nagaprasanna stated. </p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed defamatory proceedings initiated by former Jayanagar MLA Sowmya Reddy against Radhakrishna Holla, a resident of Banashankari in Bengaluru. </p>.<p>The court stated that questions raised by Holla in a video on a social media account called ‘Samvada’ did not amount to defamation. </p>.<p>The controversy is related to the Kannada Rajyotsava celebrations organised by Om Kannada Mariyammana Karunaada Sangha on November 23, 2020. </p>.POCSO case: Karnataka High Court gives interim stay on summons to Yediyurappa.<p class="bodytext">Reddy was the chief guest for the programme whose slogan was ‘Barisu Kannada Dindimava Jai Karnataka Hridaya Yesu’. This sparked a controversy for the title being the distorted version of the original lines written by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Reddy filed a defamation complaint against 53 people, stating that they had projected her as “anti-Hindu, anti-Kannadiga”, and said that she encouraged religious conversions to appease vote banks. </p>.<p class="bodytext">One of the accused persons named by her was Holla who, in a Facebook address on on November 27, 2020, posed a series of ‘questions unanswered by Sowmya Reddy’. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Reddy stated that this programme was aired without approaching her, solely with an intention to circulate false stories about her by picking on concocted issues and spreading malicious rumours. She further stated that Holla’s language would clearly defame her or bring down her reputation. In 2023, the trial court took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons. Holla challenged this, claiming that he had only expressed his views on the controversy related to an event in which Reddy was the chief guest. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The court perused 10 exceptions to IPC section 499, for defamation, and noted that the ninth exception stated that it would not amount to defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided the imputation is protection of the interest of the person making or for public good. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in the John Thomas case, which explained the distinctions between imputations which could be defamatory and which would be of public good. </p>.<p class="bodytext">“The Apex Court was interpreting the ninth exception on the score that the imputations were not per se defamatory. Unless it is shown as defamatory lowering the image of the complainant in the minds of right-thinking members of the public, it would not amount to defamation. In the light of what is afore-quoted, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, as there is nothing in the statements allegedly made by the petitioner that can become defamatory as obtaining under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC,” Justice M Nagaprasanna stated. </p>