Equivalent Citation: 2008-2-LW(Crl)811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Crl. O.P. Nos. 31393, 31394, 31395, 31396, 32286, 32341, 32595, 32612, 32613,
32953, 33547, 33548, 29681, 30200, 34429, 9064, 9525, 9575, 9580, 9581, 10006
and 10101/05 and 1523/06 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 8838, 8840, 8842, 8844, 9115, 9130,
9181, 9198, 9200, 9301, 9502, 9504, 8501, 8631, 8632, 9849, 5891, 5892, 6193,
6194, 6215, 6216, 6218, 6219, 6222, 6223, 6507, 6508, 6565 of 2005 & 312 of 2006

Decided On: 30.04.2008

Appellants: S. Khusboo
Vs.
Respondent: Kanniammal

Hon'ble Judges:
R. Regupathi, J.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sunder Mohan, Adv. in Crl. O.P. No. 32595 and 9525
of 2005, K. Asokan, Sr. Counsel for R. Karthikeyan, Adv. and R. Bharnidharan, Adv.

For Respondents/Defendant: K. Balu, Adv. for Respondents Crl. O.P. Nos. 1523/06 and
31394/2005, R. Ashraf Khan, Adv. for Respondent Crl. O.P. No. 30200/05, Rupert J.
Barnabas, Adv. for K. Balu, Adv. for Respondents Crl. O.P. Nos. 31395 and 29681 of
2005 and Ananthapadmanabhan, Adv. for K. Balu, Adv. for Respondents Crl. O.P. Nos.
32612 and 32953/05

Subject: Criminal

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Section 3, Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Section 4, Indecent Representation
of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Section 6; Indian Penal Code - Section 120B, Indian
Penal Code - Section 135, Indian Penal Code - Section 153A, Indian Penal Code -
Section 292, Indian Penal Code - Section 292A,Indian Penal Code - Section 293, Indian
Penal Code - Section 294, Indian Penal Code - Section 499, Indian Penal Code - Section
500, Indian Penal Code - Section 504, Indian Penal Code - Section 505, Indian Penal
Code - Section 509; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 125, Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) - Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 199,Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 199(1), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) -
Section 199(6), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Constitution of India -
Article 3,Constitution of India - Article 19, Constitution of India - Article
19(1), Constitution of India - Article 19(2), Constitution of India - Article
129, Constitution of India - Article 215

Cases Referred:
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0861/1997 : 1997 Cri.L.J.
4091; G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa MANU/SC/0119/1972 : Air 1972 SC 2609; Khair
Mahomed v. Emperor1925 Sind 271; Viswa Nath v. Shambhu Nath
Pandeya MANU/UP/0223/1993 : 1995 Cri.L.J. 277; Narottamdas v.
Maganbhai MANU/GJ/0106/1984 : 1984 Cri.L.J. 1790; K.M. Mathew v. T.V.
BalanMANU/KE/0187/1984 : 1985 Cri.L.J. 1039; Sasikumar B. Menon v. S.
Vijayan MANU/KE/0679/1998 : 1998 Cri.L.J. 3973; Rajit D. Udeshi v. State of
Maharashtra MANU/SC/0080/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 881; Sewakram v. R.K.
Karanjiya MANU/SC/0219/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1514; In Re: Harijai
Singh MANU/SC/2071/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 466; Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau
Surajmal RathiMANU/SC/1246/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 263

Citing Reference:

Discussed

Mentioned

Case Note:
Criminal - Cognizance of Offence - Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Magistrates, after
going into allegations made in private complaints and supportive materials
produced, took cognizance of offences alleged and consequently, issued
summons against Petitioner - Hence, this Petition - Whether, prima facie
materials made available in complaints were sufficient to attract penal
provisions under IPC and Act - Held, Petitioner was granted bail by order of
Trial Court and one of conditions imposed was that she should not make any
public statement which was subject matter of dispute till disposal of case -
However, Accused in sensitive case, who was granted relief and directed to
comply with certain conditions so as to ensure that again turbulent situation
could not arise, had audacity to pass adverse comments against court and
legal system - Further, batch of cases against Petitioner emerged out of
single cause of action and allegations and defence projected in all cases
appeared to be same - Thus, in order to avoid scattered trial of cases
involving same cause of action before several court all cases were directed
to be transferred to file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who could conduct
joint trial of cases and dispose of same - Hence, prima facie materials made
available in complaints were sufficient to attract penal provisions under IPC
and Act - Writ Petition disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi

"Accused in sensitive case, who is been granted relief and directed to comply
with certain conditions so as to ensure that again turbulent situation shall
not arise, shall not pass any adverse comments against court and legal
system."

ORDER

R. Regupathi, J.

1. Cries and clamours and voices of condemnation could be heard throughout the
State of Tamil Nadu subsequent to the controversial comments of a famed cine
celebrity made during her interviews to a famous Magazine and a popular Tamil Daily
about premarital sex & Indian Society and Tamil culture and, as the feelings of the
members of the commonalty had been outraged, the waves of reflex could
swiftly cross even the boundaries of the State. The fuming aura due to sweeping
protests and obstinate agitations got eased only when doors of the court were knocked
at various districts of Tamil Nadu, of course in North India also at Indore, by filing
private complaints against the actress and there derived positivity that law would take
its own course. The present batch of petitions have been preferred to quash
the proceedings pending before various courts of Magistrates in the State on
the ground that there was illegality on the part of the trial courts in taking
cognizance of the offences alleged in the baseless private complaints and
subsequently issuing summons against the petitioner. Actually, some of the
petitions have been filed before this Court while others before the Madurai Bench and
in order to have one touch and give a quietus, all the petitions have been clubbed
together and posted before this Court for hearing and disposal.

2. Though two of the petitions viz., 32595 and 9525 of 2005, have been preferred by
the Magazine/India Today, since the issue involved is almost one and the same in all
the petitions, they are disposed of by this Common Order.

3. First, it would be apropos to delve into the factual backdrop which ultimately led to
filing of private complaints before various Subordinate Courts as against the actress as
well as the Magazine.

The petitioner, who is a popular cine actress and television game show host, was
interviewed by India Today Magazine, which surveyed celebrities' views on pre-marital
sex and, in the news item appeared in the Tamil Publication of the said Magazine with
cover-story titled 'chastity getting obsolete', her statement made during the interview
appeared and from the contents, it is seen that the petitioner proceeded to state that
it could be seen that the girls at Chennai are crossing the psychological barriers
regarding sex as they come to be viewed at pubs and discotheques; that in the Indian
Society stuffed with conservative taboos, unlike early days, women have now started
to flap their wings; that sex education should be given at school level and if not,
parents of the children should take efforts to teach them the basics of sex; that when a
girl is serious about her relationship with a male friend, her parents should allow such
relationship; that the community should be liberated from the perception that at the
time of marriage, the bride should be with virginity; and that no educated male would
expect that his helpmate would be with virginity, however, while indulging in pre-
marital sex, one must be careful that it should not result in pregnancy and venereal
diseases.

Such polemical comments made by the petitioner received wide condemnation from
several organizations alleging that by making such comments, she opened the
floodgates of cultural degradation, whereupon, she was interviewed by a reporter of a
Tamil Daily 'Dhina Thanthi' regarding her earlier comments/statement made to India
Today on premarital sex. Such interview to Dhiana Thanthi was published in its edition
dated 24.09.2005. By raising a question that those who criticise her statement belong
to which culture, she ventured to ask, is there anybody in Tamil Nadu who does not
know about sex and aids and how many men and women are there who did not
indulge in pre-marital sex.

Subsequent to those comments, the already ignited sparks turned to robust flames
and the same also left open to a fresh debate over the gap between public morality
and private attitudes towards sex. Even the State had to direct the Director General of
Police to draw up a strategy to prevent the protests growing violent. In such
circumstances, some members of the public, most of whom are women, have chosen
to approach the court on the ground that they were markedly offended by the
objectionable and controversial remarks made against the Indian society in general
and Tamil Culture and women in particular. In nutshell, the allegations made in the
private complaints are that, because of the ignominious comments of the petitioner
made during her interviews, one could easily draw an inference that virginity should
not be expected from the women in Tamil Nadu meaning thereby, they have no
chastity; that, not only the complainants but their family members as well as the entire
community were greatly offended and the complainants in particular were subjected to
great mental agony as their self-respect and dignity were questioned, as a result, they
lost peace of mind; that the interviews would serve as unfair means to look at the
Tamil Women with a contemptuous eye; and that Tamil Nadu is a place where Kannagi,
the symbol of chastity, is greatly honoured and where modesty is considered more
than a woman's life; that being so, the slanderous and blasphemous comments made
by the petitioner, insulting the community as a whole as also the Indian societal set-up
based on pristine principles, attract penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the
special enactment viz., The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
(in short 'Act').

The learned Magistrates, after going into the allegations made in the private
complaints and the supportive materials produced, have taken cognizance of the
offences alleged and consequently, issued summons against the petitioner; hence, the
present petitions to quash those proceedings.

4. Before this Court could proceed further to examine the rival contentions projected
by the counsels appearing on either side, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant
provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Act under which the learned Magistrates
have taken cognizance on the private complaints as the same would have a bearing on
the controversy involved.

Sl. No. Offences taken Ingredients cognizance by the trial courts 1 120-B IPC Punishment
of Criminal Conspiracy 2 153 IPC Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot. 3
153-A IPC Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place
of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony 4
292 IPC Sale, etc., of obscene materials 5 292-A IPC Printing etc. of grossly indecent or
scurrilous matter or matter intended for Blackmail. 6 293 IPC Sale etc. of obscene objects
to young person 7 499 IPC Defamation 8 500 IPC Punishment for defamation 9 504 IPC
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace 10 505(1)(b) IPC Statements
conducing to public mischief 11 509 IPC Word, gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman 12 Section 4 Prohibition of publication or sending by post of of the
Act bo1oks, pamphlets etc., containing indecent representation of women 13 Section 6
Deals with penalty

Statement of objects and Reasons' as found in the Act may be highlighted here:

The law relating to obscenity in this country is codified in Sections 292, 293 and 294 of
the Indian Penal Code. In Spite of these provisions, Though there may be no specific
intention, these advertisements, publications, etc. have the effect of depraving or
corruptive persons. It is therefore, felt necessary to have a separate legislation to
effectively prohibit the indecent representation of women through advertisements,
books, pamphlets etc.

Salient features:

(a) Indecent representation of women has been defined to mean the depiction
in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in
such a way as to have the effect of being indecent or derogatory to, or
denigrating, women or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality
or morals.
(b) It is proposed to prohibit all advertisements, publications, etc. which contain
indecent representation of women in any form.

(c) It has also been proposed to prohibit selling, distribution, circulation of any
books, pamphlets, etc. containing indecent representation of women.

(d) Offences under the Act are made punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term extending to two years and fine extending to two
thousand rupees on first conviction. Second and subsequent convictions will
attract a higher punishment.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused at the outset submits that the
offences aforementioned are not made out. According to him, prima facie materials
made available in the complaints are not sufficient to attract the penal provisions
under the IPC and the Act. The petitioner is a famous film actress in several languages
and earned good reputation amongst public. She is a married women, has got children
and leading a family life. Only due to animosity and jealousy, the complaints have
been filed with a view to tarnish her image. India Today conducted a survey on the
subject of premarital sex of girls in big cities all over India by interviewing celebrities
like the petitioner and when comments were invited from her, she had offered her fair
opinion on the issue involved. What she has stated is, sex is not merely a physical
relationship but also it is a matter concerning with disposition of mind and desire;
Indian society should get reformed thereby virginity should not be expected from a
bride at the time of marriage; educated men should not expect that the bride must be
virgin and, in that lines, advised that persons having premarital intercourse should
adopt proper safety measures to avoid pregnancy and venereal diseases. A fair and
unbiased reading of those comments would suggest that there is nothing wrong in
giving her own opinion and making comments on the subject matter. Actually, the
petitioner had no intention to insult or cause injury to the feelings of any sect or
community or to defame their customs, traditions and culture but made her
statements only in good faith. That being so, misleading information has been
published in Dhina Thanthi, edition dated 24.09.2005, and finding that a distorted
version had been given, legal notice was issued to the said Newspaper. He submitted
that the statement of the petitioner as published in India Today falls within the
parameters of freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. Certain group of persons misconstrued the statement of the
petitioner and, without appreciating the same in a proper perspective, they preferred
private complaints before various courts. It is false to allege that such statements
issued by the petitioner would amount to defamation or criticising the
chastity and virginity of the women in Tamil Nadu as well as the cherished
Tamil culture. As a matter of fact, nothing has been stated about the women of Tamil
Nadu in particular and the petitioner only referred to the social custom prevailing in
Indian Society. Nowhere she has referred either the culture of Tamil ladies or any other
specific community or people. The respondents/complainants are not aggrieved
persons within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. to maintain private complaints.
Though in some of the complaints, it has been mentioned that those complaints had
been filed in representative capacity, the procedure adopted being erroneous, the
same are not maintainable. The comments made by the petitioner cannot be said to be
defamatory against the member of any class or body to which he or she belongs to.
Inasmuch as the so-called offensive statement is nothing but a personal opinion and
fair comment of the petitioner, her action is protected by more than one exceptions
appended to Section 499 IPC. Only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner, with
mala fide intention, the private complaints have been filed and the same is an abuse of
process of law and ex facie illegal. To prosecute the petitioner under Section 505 IPC.,
as per Section 196(a) Cr.P.C., sanction must be obtained from the Central or State
Government and it could be seen that, in Crl.O.P. No. 31394 of 2005, no such sanction
has been obtained, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is erroneous. By
submitting that, as per Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance of the
offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC unless the complaint is filed by a person
aggrieved, learned Senior Counsel argued that the private complaints have been filed
by women against whom nothing has been stated in individual capacity, therefore,
they have no locus standi to prefer the complaints. Similarly, unless there is intentional
insult to provoke breach of peace, offence under Section 504 IPC. will not be made out.
In the cases on hand, no allegation has been made in the private complaints to the
effect that such statement of the petitioner caused breach of peace. Section 509 IPC.
speaks about intending insult to the modesty of a woman through word, gesture or act
and the statement made cannot be construed to fit in with the ingredients of the said
Section. Likewise, to make out an offence under Section 505 IPC., a person must have
issued statements conducing to public mischief with an intention to cause fear or
alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person might have
been induced to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility, and
in the cases on hand, it can never be said that such mischief has been caused due to
the comments made. Section 3 of the Act is applicable only to the publisher. Section
153 IPC. in respect of wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot and Section
153-A IPC. dealing with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony, are not attracted in the case of the petitioner. Again, it is
submitted that the complainants, most of whom are women, have not stated as to how
they were affected by the statement made by the petitioner and nowhere it has been
specifically averred that the complaints have been filed on behalf of a group or
association. Though it has been bluntly stated that the statement of the petitioner
disgraced the women in Tamil Nadu, no substantive material has been produced in
that regard.

To fortify the contention that offences under Sections 153-A and 505 IPC. are not made
out, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported
in MANU/SC/0861/1997 : 1997 Cri.L.J. 4091 (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra
Pradesh) and the relevant portion is extracted below:

15. The common feature in both Sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or
ill-will "between different" religious or castes and communities it is necessary that at
least two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of
one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot
attract either of the two sections.

To substantiate the point that the complainants are not actually the persons
aggrieved, the decision reported in MANU/SC/0119/1972 : Air 1972 SC 2609 (G.
Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa) has been relied on, wherein, it was held that Section
199 Cr.P.C. being mandatory, if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of
defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and
conviction would be void and illegal.

In respect of the offence alleged under Section 509 IPC., the decision reported in 1925
Sind 271 (Khair Mahomed v. Emperor) has been pressed into service and the ratio laid
down therein is to the effect that, in order to constitute an offence under Section 509
IPC., there must be some individual woman or women whose modesty has been
outraged and though it is not necessary that individual woman should herself make a
complaint, there must be an allegation that the action complained of, has insulted the
modesty of some particular woman or women and not merely of any class or order or
section of women, however, small.

The case law reported in MANU/UP/0223/1993 : 1995 Cri.L.J. 277(Viswa Nath v.

Shambhu Nath Pandeya) has also been relied on wherein it is observed that Section
199 Cr.P.C. contains mandatory provision for the court not to take cognizance of an
offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence and
that where in a article of a magazine imputations were made against a certain
community in general and not any particular group and nor were the said imputations
related to the complainant and the said community was also not found to be a definite,
identifiable body of people, continuance of the case after the death of complainant
under the representation of his advocate would not be proper.

In support of the contention that only an aggrieved person can move the court, he
placed much reliance on the rulings reported in MANU/GJ/0106/1984 : 1984 Cri.L.J.
1790 (Narottamdas v. Maganbhai), MANU/KE/0187/1984 : 1985 Cri.L.J. 1039 (K.M.
Mathew v. T.V. Balan) and MANU/KE/0679/1998 : 1998 Cri.L.J. 3973 (Sasikumar B.
Menon v. S. Vijayan).

Ultimately, by stating that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen hailing from a
respectable family and that the allegations are baseless, it is pleaded that the Criminal
Original Petitions may be ordered quashing the criminal proceedings pending against
the petitioner before various subordinate courts in the State.

6. Per contra, learned Counsels for the respondents submitted that prima facie
materials are available to constitute the offences alleged and therefore the relief
sought for by the petitioner to quash the proceedings be negatived. They elaborated
the submissions by stating that the petitioner, being a famous cine actress in Tamil
Nadu, should have exercised restraint while issuing statements to a publication. The
irresponsible statements made and the message conveyed thereby had the effect of
corrupting the minds of the younger generation. Though it has been stated that
publication of defamatory imputation in Dhina Thanthi has been questioned by the
petitioner through legal notice, no further follow-up action has been taken and
unfortunately, the contention of the petitioner is that such statement has been issued
in good faith. Residing permanently in Tamil Nadu and knowing well that her statement
being given to the Tamil Edition of the Magazine would reach one and all in Tamil
Nadu, she was very well aware that it would mean the people of Tamil Nadu in general.
After eruption of agitations in Tamil Nadu against the petitioner, she made the
comments against Tamil Culture and chastity of Tamil women on being interviewed by
a reporter of Dhina Thanthi, therefore, it is very much clear that the imputations are
meant only against the people of Tamil Nadu. Though the petitioner has taken shelter
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India stating that the statement made by
her is not conclusive and it falls within the parameters of freedom of speech and
expression, the opinion and comments made by her will not fit in with such
constitutional guarantee. Even if she has stated so in general terms, it is a
derogatory statement and propagation of immorality and indecency in social
and family life. At any rate, the entire women in Tamil Nadu have been
offended by the statements resulting in ever-widening agitations throughout
the State and clash between groups, thereby internal peace of the State was
put to peril. Of course, she may express her personal opinion and experience about
premarital sex but she is not supposed to propagate or preach her lewd ideology to the
society. When scientists, academicians, scholars and experts are making efforts to
present the subject of sexology to the commoners in a way that it would be rightly
understood and ethically acted upon so that moral degradation would be avoided,
through her comments, on the one hand she passed on a wrong message to the
youngsters and on the other hand injured the feelings of the Tamil community in
particular and criticised the Indian societal set-up in general. Each and every
complainant herein representing the public is an aggrieved person and, from a careful
reading of the provisions of the Code, it is apparent that Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. is not
attracted and that in the light of Section 199(6) Cr.P.C., the complainants have got
every right to lodge a complaint before the competent court of law. On the question of
locus standi, the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case (1980 SCC (Cri) 777, followed
by umpteen number of cases, has categorically observed that such aggrieved persons
may set the law in motion in the larger interests of the society. Some of the
complainants in these batches of cases are unmarried women, practising advocates
and involved in public life and further in their representative capacity to represent
Tamil and Indian culture, they have filed such complaints and on the ground of locus
standi, the complaints cannot be rejected. Considerable damage and great mental
agony had been caused and the impact of her statements could be felt by one and all
in the State and that being so, the extent of damage and injury could be assessed only
during the course of trial. Apart from the complaint, other substantive materials are
yet to be produced before the learned Magistrate. The defence put forth by the
petitioner, at best, may have to be projected before the trial court while adjudicating
upon the issues. Learned Counsels for the respondents in support of their contentions
relied on certain decisions and relevant portions thereof are quoted below.

A. MANU/SC/0080/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 881 (Rajit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra) -

extract from Head Note (b),

The cherished rights of freedom of speech or expression on which our democracy rests is
meant for the expression of free opinions to change political or social conditions or for
the advancement of human knowledge. This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions
which may be thought necessary in the interest of the general public and one such is the
interest of public decency and morality. Section 292 Penal Code manifestly embodies
such a restriction because the law against obscenity, of course, correctly understood and
applied, seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality. The word obscenity
is really not vague because it is a word which is well understood even if person differ in
their attitude to what is obscene and what is not.

B. MANU/SC/0219/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1514 (Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjiya) - extract

from Head Note (B):

Journalists do not enjoy any special privilege, and have no greater freedom than others
to make any imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen.
Journalists are in no better position than any other person. Even the truth of an allegation
does not permit a justification under First Exception unless it is proved to be in the public
good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact like any
other relevant fact in issue. If they make assertions of facts as opposed to comments on
them, they must either justify these assertions or, in the limited cases specified in the
Ninth Exception, show that the attack on the character of another was for the public
good, or that it was made in good faith....

It was also observed therein that the questions of "good faith" and "public good" etc.
are questions of facts to be decided after the regular trial is held and should not have
been answered at the stage when even the accused was not examined.

C. In re: D.C. Saxena (MANU/SC/0627/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2481):

13. Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, would be subject to Article 19(2), 129
and 215 of the Constitution, in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to
an offence etc. Article 3 read with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
grants to everyone liberty and right to freedom of opinion and expression. Article 19 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to which India is a signatory
and had ratified, provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, to
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds but Clause (3) thereof imposes
corresponding duty on the exercise of the right and responsibilities. It may, therefore, be
subject to certain restrictions but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
necessary for the respect of life and reputations of others for the protection of national
security or public order or of public health or moral. It would thus be seen that liberty of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) brings within its ambit, the
corresponding duty and responsibility and puts limitations on the exercise of that liberty.

D. In Re: Harijai Singh MANU/SC/2071/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 466, at page 472:

9. It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is
indispensable to the functioning of a true democracy. In a democratic set-up,
there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people in all
spheres and affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their right to be
kept informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well
as the burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to
consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are
being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its
functionaries. To achieve this objective the people need a clear and truthful
account of events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own
comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their further
course of action. The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide
comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's
political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising
role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an
instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here that Mahatma Gandhi
in his autobiography has stated that one of the objectives of the newspaper is
to understand the proper feelings of the people and give expression to it;
another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the
third is to fearlessly express popular defects. It, therefore, turns out that the
press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for
publication.

10. But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute,
unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an
unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an
uncontrolled licence....

7. It would be appropriate to deal with the legal issues first and thereafter the
contentions projected on either side and the other vital aspects involved.

8. Since the auxiliary questions relating to all other offences would arise for
consideration only if the court comes to a definite conclusion on the main question as
to whether the allegation of defamation is prima facie made out, it is
sufficient to restrict the discussion with the said aspect viz., whether, prima
facie, the plea of defamation is available to the complainants in order to
reject the prayer of the petitioner before this Court and consequently, allow
the proceedings continue before the trial courts.

9. Section 499 IPC relating to defamation reads as follows:

499. Defamation- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or

by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, of defame that person.

Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased

person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and
is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning

a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed

ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that
imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in
respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or
causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or
in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

GOOD ONE The basic idea of defamation law is simple and clear. It is an attempt to
balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of
speech. Anything that injures a person's reputation can be defamatory. If a comment
brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory. Such
defamation may be by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or
visible representation. Whether a statement is defamatory involves determining what
the statement means or "imputes", and then assessing whether that meaning or
imputation materially injured the reputation of the complainant having regard to the
truth of the allegations. What the petitioner intended her words to convey is generally
irrelevant; rather, courts would apply the meaning that the ordinary and reasonable
person would draw from the material, and pose themselves the questions viz., is the
statement true, does it matter if it is true, how will readers interpret it, and what was
the mens rea of the person who made it. It must be noticed that the essence of the
offence of defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain which is
felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of
his fellow beings and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such
unfavourable sentiments is exposed. While keeping the said aspect in mind, courts
should be very slow to draw an adverse inference against the accused and, in order to
come to correct conclusion, it is necessary to make a general assessment whether the
statement made is offensive or indecent in the sense that it outraged public decency,
and whether it offended community standards of decency in the circumstances and in
the manner in which it was presented.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a cine actress, who gained popularity
in Tamil Nadu to such a level that her fans went to the extreme extent of
constructing a temple for her. She is not an academician or a researcher in
sexology to preach the subject in the fashion understood by her. It seems
that she had studied only upto VIII Standard. Apart from the field of cinema, she
does not have any expertise or scholarly knowledge in the area of sociology or
sexology. She is neither a member of any social or women organization fighting for the
cause of women or their upliftment nor involved in public life. Thus, she cannot be
categorised as an expert in sexology or any connected branch of that subject. In such
circumstances, the comments made at the interview to India Today on the subject of
premarital sex have to be assessed. While expressing her individual opinion, she has
stated that, in the Indian Society stuffed with conservative taboos, woman is gradually
flapping her wings; that the society should get liberated from the thinking that women
should not lose their virginity till marriage and that educated persons should not
expect their life partners to be with virginity at the time of marriage. She even went
ahead to state that if a girl is very serious about her relationship with her opposite sex,
the parents should allow such relationship and that, while indulging in premarital sex,
care should be taken to avoid pregnancy and venereal diseases. Had the petitioner
stated that she as a parent and member of a family would introduce and teach such
lifestyle amongst her family members, then it is her personal opinion. But, the problem
arose when she addressed the society at large to bring up the children in a fashion
heralded and suggested by her in the name of liberation of women and not to care
about being virgin, and further stated that a groom should not expect his prospective
bride to be with virginity. Not stopping therewith, after publication of her statement in
India Today, when a clarification was sought for by a reporter of Dhina Thanthi stating
that such statement would lead to cultural degradation, the petitioner questioned as to
which culture they are referring to and asked as to how many men and women are in
Tamil Nadu who did not indulge in pre-marital sex. She was proud enough to say that
she used to be transparent and open in her speech and she does not bother about
those who do not understand her comments. Though it is stated that she has not given
any such reply or clarification and that a legal notice was issued to the Newspaper, it
seems that no further action has been pursued thereafter. It must be pointed out that
the comments made at the first instance would have gone vanished in course of time if
the petitioner withdrew her statement by showing immediate reaction having regard to
the intensity of the situation. Learned Senior Counsel again pointed out that a legal
notice was issued to the Daily to publish her objections immediately and to make it
clear that she did not actually mean what has been widely understood; therefore, it is
repeated that the matter was not pursued further and that it is a disputed area where
this Court does not desire to enter into. If she was so much serious, she could have
very well called for a press meet and clarified her position.

11. It is well accepted in a democratic society that individuals have a right to express
their own views and preferences. Would it be taken to mean that such freedom is free
from restriction and limitation. The answer is, an emphatic 'no'. Freedom of speech is
important but not absolute. Under the exercise of freedom of movement, if one would
walk on the middle of the road, the freedom granted to vehicle owners would take
away his/her life. Therefore, the rights and freedom given to a citizen must be
exercised within its reasonable restriction and the same should not invade the rights of
others. Viewing in that perspective, this Court is unable to appreciate the plea
projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. Admittedly, the first comments made in the Magazine have not been
denied and the comments made on the second occasion by way of reply to the Tamil
Daily are disputed. On the grounds of locus standi and referring to the exceptions
appended to Section 499, viz.,

i) It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person,

if it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published.

ii) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever regarding
the conduct or character of a public servant in discharge of his public function.

iii) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the
conduct or character of any person touching any public question.

iv) It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report or result of a Court

of Justice of any such proceedings.

v) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits
of any case, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or the conduct of any
person as a party, or the witness or the agent, in such case.

vi) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits
of any performance which an author has submitted to the Judgment of the
public.

vii) It is not defamation if a person having any authority over another person,
either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract, to pass in good faith
any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful
authority relates.

viii) It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any

person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect
to the subject matter of accusation.
ix) It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another
person, provided it is made in good faith by person for protection of his or
other's interests.

x) It is not defamation to convey a caution, intended for the good of a person to

whom conveyed or for public good,

it is submitted that inasmuch the act of the petitioner is protected by some of the
aforesaid exceptions, taking cognizance of the offences by the courts below against
the petitioner should be held to be illegal. In general, the available defences are,
justification, contextual truth, absolute privilege, publication of public documents, fair
report of proceedings of public concern, qualified privilege for provision of certain
information, honest opinion, innocent dissemination and triviality. As observed earlier,
if really the petitioner had acted in good faith, she would have taken immediate steps
either by withdrawing the statement made or refuting the allegation by convening a
press meet or by further pursuing the legal action against the Daily after issuance of
legal notice. Further, the petitioner did not come out with specific defence of good
faith, pointing out the circumstances in which her case could be brought under any of
the exceptions appended to the penal provisions. Having not done so, the contentions
now made after commencement of the proceedings would in no way advance the case
of the petitioner. In order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen first
the circumstances under which the statement was made; secondly, whether there was
any malice; thirdly, whether the accused made any enquiry before he/she made the
allegations; fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he/she
acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability
that the accused acted in good faith. Whether such circumstances have been
established is again a question of fact. This Court, at this stage while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot traverse into the same and at best, such
elements to be examined on facts must be left to the decision of the trial court. Section
482 does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent
power which Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to
give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court,
and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to
lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions
of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon
them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely
recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil
or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in
course of administration of justice on the principle 'quando lex aliquid alicui concedit,
concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest' (when the law gives a
person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. In the
case on hand, in order to do substantial justice, it is but proper to allow the
proceedings to continue.

12. 2nd issue Coming to the question as to whether the respondents/complainants

would come under the purview of 'persons affected', it must be made clear that, in the
light of the various aspects adverted above, everyone who claims to be affected by the
statements of the petitioner is deemed to be an aggrieved person and in what manner
they are aggrieved is purely a question of fact which must be decided during the
course of trial. It is pertinent here to refer to the ruling of the Apex Court in Shatrughna
Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi MANU/SC/1246/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 263, at
page 267, wherein, while allowing the appeal in part, it was held thus:

13. .... on a reading of the complaint we do not think that we will be justified at this stage
to quash that complaint. It is not the province of this Court to appreciate at this stage the
evidence or scope of and meaning of the statement. Certain allegations came to be
made but whether these allegations do constitute defamation of the Marwari community
as a business class and whether the appellant had intention to cite as an instance of
general feeling among the community and whether the context in which the said
statement came to be made, as is sought to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant, are all matters to be considered by the learned Magistrate at a later stage.
At this stage, we cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion
to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence
punishable under Section 500. It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the
complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence
under Section 499 triable by the Magistrate. The Magistrate prima facie came to the
conclusion that the allegations might come within the definition of 'defamation' under
Section 499 IPC and could be taken cognizance of. But these are the facts to be
established at the trial. The case set up by the appellant are either defences open to be
taken or other steps of framing a charge at the trial at whatever stage known to law.
Prima facie we think that at this stage it is not a case warranting quashing of the
complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Nasik. To that extent, the
High Court was right in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC.

When citizens affected by the derogatory remarks against Indian Society and Tamil
Culture complain the same as a member of Indian Society stating that they are greatly
offended, such complaints cannot be so lightly brushed aside. I find, prima facie,
materials are available to constitute not only the offences committed but also to
substantiate that the complainants are 'aggrieved persons'. The law is well settled that
even an individual composing a group can file a complaint even if he/she is not
mentioned by name if he/she is aggrieved but the group must be determinate and
identifiable body.

In the light of the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that
prima facie offence under Section 499 IPC. is made out and that the complainants are
aggrieved persons in the eye of law to set the law in motion.

13. Pausing here, urged with a sense of social concern, this Court deems it
essential to comment upon certain vital aspects having relevancy to the
issue involved.

One of the important aspects of sexual ethics concerns the emotion of love. Ever since
the ancient times, the essence of sex has been given special attention in philosophy.
Sex has been commonly acknowledged as a wholesome reality and mostly in our
literature, we find that sex has been extolled not only in terms of its Divine
connotation, but even in its down-to-earth human emotional context. In either case,
there has been no confusion of sex with any kind of lust.

In this country, though cultural heritage, customs, usage, languages etc. differ from
State to State, insofar sex is concerned, throughout the country, certain conservative
ideas are adopted all these days. Chastity is considered here to be a lifestyle that
brings freedom, respect, peace, and even romance ' without regret and it liberates a
couple from the selfish attitudes of using each other as objects, and makes them
capable of their love. No one questions his would-be whether she is a virgin or not,
because, everyone faithfully believes and has a good point of view about his bride or
her bridegroom as the case may be that she or he would be chaste and modest. In
India, chastity and love are explicitly regulated, that is why, women are assigned an
elevated position in society and they are ordinarily not approachable by men except
through legal means viz., marriage. In the other situation, where love and chastity are
implicitly promoted; but not regulated, one could witness, women's position is subject
to the utter tedium of placing themselves at the disposal and protection of their men.
One may wonder as to which one of these two sets of conditions are apt to enhance
love and chastity. Incidentally, it is notable that the so called open or permissive
societies, blindly lauded by the petitioner, are ipso facto incapable of promoting
conditions for any deep and intense love relationships. Their conditions lead to
waywardness and wantonness, in the process of seeking transient affairs, if not while
indulging in momentary and lustful pleasures.

It is aptly said, Sex takes the least amount of time, but causes the most amount of
trouble, underlining the real and uncompromising risks of sexual expression when
done in any setting outside the bounds of marriage. Sex, in its proper season, is one of
the most beautiful expressions that two people can share. For it to truly reach its
greatest potential, there are rules and guidelines to help the people accept the great
responsibilities that come with the single greatest power, the ability to create a new
life.

No doubt, sex has been eulogised in many ways, both in the West and India. Yet, there
has come to be a difference between the Indian and Western conceptualisation of sex.
Unlike Indian Society, in the west in particular, sexual relationships are generally
viewed as the private preference of each individual as perceived by the petitioner. No
one has the right to determine with whom, or how one conducts one's sex life. What
occurs between consenting adults, no matter what sex or how many, is usually
condoned. Premarital sex is considered quite acceptable, normal, well within the
bounds of morality, and indeed desirable. Dating begins at a very young age and every
socially well-adjusted youngster is expected to have several girlfriends and boyfriends
by a certain age. Use of condoms by school going children has become a common
phenomenon there. Thus, those who grow up in the West are weaned on sex in both
subtle and not so subtle ways. That is why, to many Westerners, sex can be worthwhile
as long as it embodies the sweetness mutually attainable by lovers. Individuals of
opposite sex there prefer the desirability and enjoyability of living together in mutual
love and comfort to the constant annoyance and boredom of living as singles. They
aim at maximising enjoyment of life. In quite contrast thereto, in Indian society, sex is
regarded as something inexorably desirable in itself only through marriage and one
would pray while entering conjugal life that the marital relationship should continue
even after death in the world of souls. If such social set-up strengthened by moral and
ethical ideology is criticised, it would result in adverse impact both emotional and
consequential.

The purpose of highlighting the above aspects is that to-day, courts are
flooded with stream of criminal cases involving sexual offences. In an era of
wide open attitudes about sexuality and at a time when teenagers are
flooded with conflicting messages about their own sexuality, if such
statements are made under the garb of freedom of speech and expression,
the outcome would be unwanted pregnancies or spread of sexually
transmitted diseases that would kill or cripple the younger generation.
Morality is not old-fashioned or irrelevant in a modern world, for, morality is not simply
a creation of religion but rather a necessary underpinning of a healthy and successful
society. While many things have changed a great deal over the years, some things
have not changed and other things should not change viz., moral and ethical values.
There would be no purpose in hiding the fact that to-day's society is running backward
turning away from ethical and moral norms and sexually inciting materials are in
prevalence everywhere. In such circumstances, persons like petitioner, who succeeded
in gaining the recognition of the society, should endeavour to refine the society by
giving some good advices and if they feel they cannot do so, then, they should keep
quiet confining themselves to their own agenda. But, in the name of freedom of
speech, if they pass on messages corrupting the minds of the youngsters, the same
would not be tolerated since ultimately it would lead to abrupt increase of sexual
offences. There would be no second opinion at all that if such scabrous views are
propagated, cultural degradation will be the resultant position ultimately leading to
upsetting of social order. Thus, Freedom of expression would not give an unbridled
licence to a citizen of India to speak about free sex/pre-marital sex.

It is the perpetual understanding of a right mind that both premarital and extramarital
relationships are molecules of immorality. Largely, such relationship advocated to be
adopted by the petitioner can also be termed as 'cohabitation' and the definition
available for the term is 'a non-marital heterosexual arrangement or a semi-permanent
heterosexual relationship outside the scope of marriage'. The petitioner addressed the
society in particular the younger generation to acquire the right of cohabitation. With a
fair approach and unbiased mind, one has to judge the issue between the two
conflicting views on the right of cohabitation/premarital or extramarital sex. According
to one view, rather a traditional view, such relationship is completely wrong and
promotes sexual promiscuity which is injurious to physical and mental health. It is
pertinent to point out that such view is still reflected in the adultery laws which make
extramarital sex illegal. On the other extreme, there is sexual anarchy which
advocates the removal of all sexual taboos and controls with full and universal
availability of sex, the only restriction being the prohibition of sexual violence. In
between these two poles, the judicious and balanced view is humanistic liberalism
which holds that morality inheres in one's deeds rather than the commission or
omission of the act itself. Immorality in the present context seems to refer to nothing
more or less than extra-marital or pre-marital relationships.

One cannot justify an agreement or a contract between a man and a woman living
together without getting married providing for the terms and conditions of a possible
cohabitation and/or future separation, because, such contract is contrary to public
policy and illegal as it is quite obvious that the object of such contract is to promote
sexual immorality. In law, a woman cannot claim maintenance from the cohabiting
man. To claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she must come within the
category of wife and the term 'wife' means a legally wedded wife both in Hindu and
Muslim Law. The legal status and rights and obligations of partners in premarital and
extramarital sex are just naught contrary to those available in case of married couples
who could get solution for numerous legal problems concerning the disposition of
jointly accumulated property, money and debts as well as the custody, guardianship
and maintenance of children born to them. The other ugly face of such relationships is
birth of children who would be branded by the society as 'illegitimate children' and the
scar and stigma those innocents would bear throughout their life because of the no sin
committed by them but due to the acts of the lust-stricken couples is really an injustice
caused to them. Such children would not have the status of a legitimate child in the
matter of succession.

In recent past, several films have been produced, the central theme being teenage
love; thereby, a wrong and ribald message is given to the teenagers as well as school
going children that falling in love is a part of heroism, with the result, elopements have
become routine incidents and court is flooded with Habeas Corpus Petitions at the
instance of parents in search of the eloped pubescents below the age group of 18.
Police officials, amongst their hectic schedule of maintaining law and order problems,
also laden with the task of going behind the eloped ones throughout the state and
sometimes beyond the State boundaries. It is also witnessed that, in the thousands of
cases registered, most of the victims had been traced and, after completion of the
proceedings, the traced ones were entrusted to the custody of the concerned and
hundred of cases, where victims could not be traced, are still pending. Enquiries in
those cases revealed that the victims seem to have been induced to indulge in such
acts due to the impact of the movies and those victims do not have even the correct
idea of what really a family life is. In some cases, while leading life in the society, they
have to encounter with so many astringent and acerbic ordeals and when they come
back to their parents for want of security, they are rejected by them fearing that a bad
image would be depicted of the family by the neighbours and society.
Since sexology is a delicate and sensitive subject, introducing the same in schools as a
subject has not been put into practice till to-day. In fact, a Parliamentary Committee
has been constituted to study the viability of introducing sex education at Schools,
however, some experts and scholars on the subject would argue against the
introduction of such scheme. They cite the example of the society in Japan, which has
a very low teenage pregnancy rate but does not have a national sex-education
program at all, and point out that conservative norms about early marriage and
premarital sex worked out this phenomenon better than the availability of fertility
control.

14. Now coming back to the core issue, it is also seen that when the petitioner was
granted bail by order of the trial court dated 16.11.2005, one of the conditions
imposed was that she should not make any public statement which is subject matter of
the dispute till the disposal of the case. Learned Counsel for the
complainants/respondents submits that, in spite of such direction by the court, she was
continuously indulging in passing comments about her earlier statements and the
same also appeared in news items and such action on the part of the petitioner would
amount to violation of court directions. In that regard, he referred to the address given
by the petitioner during question hour at a symposium which has been published as a
news item in the English Daily 'Indian Express', edition dated 19.07.2007. The relevant
portion is extracted below:

" We talk about 52 years of Independence. I don't know whether we really have
it when it comes to freedom of expression," said actor Khushboo. She was
speaking on the sidelines of the Symposium organised by the FICCI Ladies
Organisation and Ellements, on the subject, 'Justice - Right or Privilege'.

'I have 24 cases pending against me. The law was bought in my case. Why was
I denied bail for six days?' she asked. A case is even pending against her in
Indore.

The question might go unanswered, but the actor has a point to prove in her
customary irate statements. "We must get together and say we have the
individual right to speak. Not what some lawyer speaks, but actually speak the
truth," she confided.

"I am sorry to say but India is not going to progress if this continues. We have
to fight against the so-called laws.", she added"

(emphasis supplied)

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner did not say anything about the above
referred news item. It is very unfortunate that an accused in a sensitive case, who has
been granted relief and directed to comply with certain conditions so as to ensure that
again a turbulent situation should not arise, had the audacity to pass adverse
comments against the court and the legal system. She is directed to exercise restraint
till the disposal of the cases.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there are no special
features in this case to suggest that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice
to permit the prosecution to continue. Assuming that the imputations made could be
covered by any or many of the exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC, several
questions still remain to be examined ' whether such imputations were made in good
faith, in what circumstances, with what intention, etc. All those aspects can be
examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. Answers to these questions at this
stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions.
'Good faith' and 'public good' are, at best, questions of fact and matters for evidence.
So, the trial must go on. Inasmuch as the allegations made against the
petitioner/actress are interconnected to the Magazine as well in publishing the
controversial interview, this Court deems it an unnecessary exercise to give separate
findings thereon as the same would also be dealt with by the trial court on the facts
involved. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the
publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each
case. At the risk of repetition, it is again pointed out that the expression 'some person
aggrieved' was not intended to be restricted to the person actually defamed. It must
be determined in each case according to its own circumstances whether the
complainant could be said to be in a legal sense a person aggrieved. Again, it all
depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

16. The above batch of cases emerges out of one cause of action. The allegations and
defence projected in all the cases appear to be the same. The trial of the cases could
also be completed soon since witnesses and documents are few. It is also noticed that,
despite the direction issued by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner could not restrain
herself. Therefore, in order to avoid scattered trial of cases involving same cause of
action before several courts, it is but proper to direct joint trial and disposal of all the
cases that are pending, instead of taking up separate proceedings against her for
violation of court's orders. Accordingly, all the cases are directed to be transferred to
the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who shall conduct joint
trial of the cases and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order. The trial courts concerned are in turn directed to
transmit forthwith the papers to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai, for commencement of the trial proceedings at once.

17. It is made clear that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall decide the
cases on their own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations/comments made in this order.