Mass Petition Filed by 287 People Declared Privileged by High Court
Kolkata, April 1: In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a defamation case filed by the superintendent of an educational institution against 287 individuals who had lodged a mass petition against him with the Chief Minister of West Bengal. The court determined that the allegations raised involved issues of public interest, outweighing the superintendent’s right to personal reputation.Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta delivered this judgment last week, addressing a petition that challenged the criminal defamation proceedings initiated by the superintendent in the Bardhaman district court in 2013.
Allegations and Background of the Defamation Case
The original mass petition, addressed to the West Bengal Chief Minister, accused the superintendent of participating in illegal activities within the educational institution. This institution was notably founded by a renowned freedom fighter in what was then undivided Bardhaman district.The petitioners, comprising 287 individuals, demanded an immediate inquiry and necessary action to safeguard the interests of the institution and its students. At the time the petition was filed, an inquiry into the allegations was already underway.
Court Finds Allegations Privileged and Legitimate
Senior advocate Rajdeep Mazumder, representing the petitioners, argued before Justice Gupta that the superintendent’s defamation complaint, filed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, was driven by malicious intent and lacked genuine substance.Justice Gupta, agreeing with Mazumder's arguments, stated clearly in his ruling that the superintendent failed to substantiate his claims of defamation. The judge further underscored that any allegation made in good faith to a lawful authority concerning another person's actions does not amount to defamation.
Highlighting the privileged nature of the mass petition, Justice Gupta remarked, "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."
Confidentiality and Legal Protection Affirmed by the Court
Emphasizing the legal and natural rights of citizens to address their grievances to lawful authorities confidentially, the court further observed that the petition had been responsibly submitted without malicious intent. Given the circumstances, the court concluded that the petition, aimed at protecting the educational institution and its students, "cannot be construed as malice or an imputation of reputation in public or society."This landmark decision reinforces citizens' rights to raise legitimate concerns with authorities without fear of unwarranted defamation claims.