Karnataka HC Upholds MLA’s Defamation Summons, Says Independent Witness Need Not Always Say Complainant’s Reputation Fell In Their Own Estimation for Prima Facie Defamatory Remarks

The complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner made defamatory statements at a public gathering on 21 June 2024, later broadcast on YouTube.

The Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and directed summons to issue, relying on the complaint, video materials, and sworn statements of the complainant and two witnesses.

The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision and affirmed the cognizance order.

The petitioner sought to set aside both orders and quash the proceedings, contending that no witness had stated that the complainant’s reputation was lowered in that witness’s own estimation.

Section 499 IPC defines defamation, while Explanation 4 provides that an imputation harms reputation only if it directly or indirectly lowers the person’s character, credit, or standing “in the estimation of others”.

That language does not invariably require the complainant to examine a witness who personally says that the complainant’s reputation was lowered in that witness’s own estimation; whether further evidence is required depends on the nature of the imputation and the materials and circumstances before the court.

Where an imputation is prima facie inherently capable of lowering reputation, the court may tentatively infer reputational harm at the cognizance stage; whether reputation was in fact lowered and whether an exception applies are matters for trial.

In John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, (2001) 6 SCC 30, the Supreme Court held that a per se defamatory publication may relieve the complainant of the burden of showing that it lowered reputation in the estimation of the right-thinking public.

The Court also considered Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 348, but distinguished it on its procedural and evidentiary context.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s interpretation of “in the estimation of others”: the phrase identifies whose estimation matters but does not impose an inflexible requirement to examine a witness who personally holds the adverse view.

Although the two witnesses did not identify the persons whose estimation had allegedly changed, their statements, the complainant’s statement, and the publication materials could be considered alongside the content of the imputation.

The Court found the statements to cast serious aspersions on the complainant’s integrity and character and to be inherently capable of lowering his reputation. At this preliminary stage, that sufficed to proceed; the Court did not determine whether the allegations were true, whether an exception applied, or whether reputational harm would ultimately be proved.

Finding no error in the cognizance or revisional orders, it dismissed the petition.

It clarified that its observations did not decide the merits and left all contentions open for trial.