The decision that was handed down by Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh in the case of Shahed Kamal and Others versus M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2025) offers much-needed clarity on the intersection of the right to peaceful protest and the right to commit criminal defamation.
The ruling investigates the ways in which complaints expressed by customers, even if they are critical, may not always constitute defamation if they are made in good faith and for the benefit of the public interest.
Historical Context of the Case
In one particular instance, a group of purchasers who were dissatisfied with the acts and omissions of a developer created a protest banner and displayed it in front of their residential complex.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
On the banner, a number of defects were noted, including the absence of a housing society, inadequate lift maintenance, plumbing concerns, and water problems. The assertion that “We protest for our rights” was the capstone of the presentation.
After experiencing feelings of defamation, the developer filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case, they claimed that the banner was intended to bring about a negative impact on their reputation.
The appellants’ subsequent efforts to have the proceedings thrown out were unsuccessful in the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that the Magistrate had released the summons. After some time, the case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Concerning Legal Matters and Provisions
The most important legal question that was brought before the court was whether or not the protest banner was an act of defamation in violation of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether or not any of the exceptions to this section, particularly the Ninth Exception, may protect the appellants.
Defamation is defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which also establishes 10 exceptions to the rule. Under the Ninth Exception, remarks that are made in good faith for the purpose of protecting one’s own interests or for the benefit of the public are protected from legal repercussions.
Therefore, an imputation does not constitute defamation if it is made in good faith and without malice against another person, and if it serves a legitimate purpose.
The Analysis of the Supreme Court
In the beginning, the Court reiterated the legal criterion that, contrary to popular belief, not all critical utterances constitute defamation. A person’s reputation must be harmed intentionally, maliciously, and intentionally, in order for there to be a defamation.
Importantly, the court made the observation that the banner in issue did not include any text that might be considered derogatory or indecent. Simply put, it brought attention to problems that locals have yet to overcome.
Due to the fact that the banner did not include any defamatory language or claims such as “fraud” or “cheating,” the court made the observation that it instead expressed real concerns.
Furthermore, the Court put considerable emphasis on the reality that interactions between builders and buyers naturally include a certain amount of scrutiny and discontent.
In situations involving business transactions, the act of voicing complaints, particularly when done in a manner that is nonviolent and polite, ought to be seen as a legitimate form of consumer expression rather than as a type of criminal behavior.
The Supreme Court brought up a number of previous cases that affirmed the propriety of expressing disagreement. The report made the observation that criminal defamation should not be used as a means to stifle the voices of consumers.
For the purpose of reiterating its previous decisions in the cases of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court of India has determined that peaceful demonstrations are an essential component of the democratic framework that is safeguarded by Article 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution.
Additionally, the Ninth Exception and Good Faith
One of the most important aspects of the decision was the Court’s confirmation that the appellants’ actions were acceptable under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court came to the conclusion that:
All of the appellants behaved in a sincere manner.
Residents’ legitimate interests were the focus of the protest, which was held to protect their interests.
The language that was used was measured and well-tempered.
At no point was there any malice or deception.
The court came to the conclusion that the claims included in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute criminal defamation. As a result, the court did not find it necessary to serve the appellants with a summons for trial.
Regarding the Importance of the Decision
A precedent has been established by this ruling, which protects consumer demonstrations that are factual and nonviolent from being turned into criminal cases.
It reaffirms that constitutional protections are afforded to genuine dissent, even if it is critical of commercial enterprises that have significant influence. Through the use of the Ninth Exception, the Supreme Court made certain that the views of consumers are not silenced under the pretense of defamation.
Additionally, the decision enhances the level of judicial scrutiny that is present at the earliest stages of criminal proceedings.
The statement reaffirms that before permitting cases to go forward, trial courts and High Courts are required to determine whether or not a full defense under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is present.
The decision made by the Supreme Court is a significant step forward in striking a balance between the right to reputation and the freedom of expression. It is a declaration that civil disobedience on the part of consumers, when carried out in good faith, is not a criminal act but rather a democratic right. Because to this judgment, consumers and citizens alike will have the ability to speak out about inadequacies and hold service providers responsible without the need to worry about the possibility of being subjected to criminal proceedings.
