Karnataka HC Upholds Defamation Process Against MLA, Says Witness Need Not Say Complainant’s Reputation Fell In Their Own Estimation When Imputation Is Prima Facie Defamatory

The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner made defamatory statements about him in an interview broadcast on YouTube on 30 April 2025.

The complainant and two witnesses gave sworn statements; they stated that the complainant’s reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others, but did not identify any particular person whose estimation had changed.

The Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (described in the order as corresponding to Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and issued process.

The Sessions Court affirmed that order in revision, after which the petitioner sought to set aside both orders and quash the proceedings.

Section 499 IPC and Section 356(1) BNS define defamation, with Explanation 4 requiring that an imputation lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of others.

At the cognizance and process stage, however, that requirement does not invariably oblige the complainant to examine a witness who testifies that the complainant’s reputation has fallen in that witness’s own estimation; whether further evidence is needed depends on the imputation and the available material.

Where an imputation is prima facie inherently capable of lowering reputation, the court may infer possible reputational harm from its nature and the surrounding circumstances, while leaving proof of actual harm and any applicable exception for trial.

The Court referred to John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, which recognises that a per se defamatory publication may relieve the complainant of the burden of showing at the outset that it lowered reputation in the estimation of the right-thinking public.

The Court also considered, but distinguished, Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited.

The Court held that “in the estimation of others” does not mean that a particular person must invariably be called to testify at the cognizance stage.

Although the two witnesses did not identify the people whose estimation had allegedly changed, their statements supported the allegation that the complainant’s reputation had fallen in the estimation of others.

The Court considered the alleged statements to cast serious aspersions on the complainant’s integrity and character and to be inherently capable of lowering his reputation.

Accordingly, the Magistrate could form a prima facie view of reputational harm without requiring a witness to say that the complainant’s reputation had fallen in that witness’s own estimation.

Whether the imputations were believed, actually lowered the complainant’s reputation, or fell within a statutory exception remained for trial.

The need for such evidence depends on the nature of the imputation and the surrounding material.

Finding no error in the orders taking cognizance and affirming it on revision, the Court dismissed the criminal petition.

It left all merits contentions open and clarified that its observations were not findings on the merits of the complaint or defence.