Peaceful protest not defamation: Supreme Court quashes defamation complaint against homebuyers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a defamation complaint filed against the homebuyers for putting up a poster raising their grievances against the real estate developer in 2016.

A bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar found that the manner of the protest resorted to by the appellants was peaceful and orderly and without in any manner using offensive or abusive language.

"A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud," the bench said.

Examining a plea of Shahed Kamal and others against Bombay High Court's order refusing to quash the summons against them, the bench said, it could not be said that the appellants crossed the 'Lakshman Rekha' and transgressed into the offending zone.

"Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499. Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. The criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process," Justice Vishwanathan wrote in 32-page judgment.

The court set aside the judgment and order of June 10, 2024 in passed by the High Court and quashed the complaint pending before Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Borivali, Mumbai and the summons issued on October 4, 2016 under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The complaint was filed by M/s A Surti Developers Pvt Ltd against the homebuyers for the banner put on August 10, 2015.

Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance. Not satisfied with the services provided by the respondent-developer and when, according to them, repeated entreaties did not elicit a response, the appellant-home buyers decided to resort to a unique form of protest, the court noted.

The banner raised the grievances in respect of not forming the society even after 18 months, not giving society accounts, not co-operating with the residents, not attending to builders’ defects, not sorting water issue, poor lift maintenance, leakage problem, plumbing issues, dirty/bouncy approach road, broken podium, shabby garden, ignoring grievances and noncooperation. There is a caption “we protest for our rights”.

"What strikes us is that there is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent. There is no reference to any expression like “fraud, cheating, misappropriation etc.”," the bench said.

In mild and temperate language, certain issues, which the appellants perceived as their grievances have been aired, the bench said.

"The careful choice of the words, the conscious avoidance of intemperate, rude or abusive language and the peaceful manner of protest, all point to the fact that to protect their legitimate interests and the interest of the other homeowners and without any malice and in good faith the erection of the banner was done," the bench said.

The bench said, one of the tests to decide whether the case falls within the 9th exception is the choice of words employed in the publication.

"What is significant, therefore, that in a given case, the language employed could be a clear pointer to decide whether the accused in the case has exceeded his privilege. We have already found that the appellants could not have said anything less in the poster/banner as they believed that this was rightful and legitimate to highlight their grievances, which they contend were ignored earlier," the bench said.