Kolkata, The Calcutta High Court has quashed a defamation case filed by the superintendent of an educational institution against more than 280 people who had submitted a mass petition to the Chief Minister against him, holding that it pertains to public interest outweighing the right to reputation.
Delivering a judgment on a petition challenging the criminal defamation case filed before the Bardhaman district court in 2013 by the superintendent, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that the complainant failed to substantiate his allegations of defamation against the petitioners.
“The mass complaint, filed against the complainant by 287 individuals, is privileged in nature as it pertains to a matter of public interest outweighing the right to reputation,” the court stated in its judgment last week.
The petition, addressed to the West Bengal Chief Minister, accused the complainant of engaging in illegal activities at the educational institution, which had been established by a freedom fighter in the then undivided Bardhaman district.
The petitioners sought an inquiry and appropriate action in the interest of the students and the institution.
The court noted that the allegations against the superintendent were already under inquiry and investigation.
Rajdeep Mazumder, senior counsel representing the petitioners seeking to quash the defamation case, argued before the court that the superintendent’s complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Bardhaman, was mala fide, motivated and frivolous.
Justice Gupta observed that making an accusation in good faith against a person to a lawful authority over the accused does not constitute defamation.
The court further noted that in this case, over 280 people had signed the mass petition, making the same allegations against the complainant.
Justice Gupta emphasised that the petition was submitted confidentially to the appropriate authorities as part of the petitioners’ legal and natural rights.
This mass petition is for the protection of the institution and its students, the court said, holding that it “cannot be construed as malice or an imputation of reputation in public or society.”
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.