Followers Cannot Sue for Defamation of Spiritual Leaders: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a publishing house, establishing that a disciple or follower lacks the legal standing to institute a defamation complaint for imputations directed solely at their spiritual head. This ruling fortifies the mandatory requirement that only a 'person aggrieved' can trigger the machinery of criminal law for reputation-based offences, effectively shielding publishers from third-party litigation initiated by sensitive devotees.

A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha heard the petition filed by M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. seeking to quash a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a complaint filed by a follower of Swami Ramdev regarding the book "Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Swami Ramdev". The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the grounds of lack of locus standi, absence of statutory sanction for religious offences, and procedural lapses.

Legal Standing of Disciples in Defamation Suits

The Court scrutinized Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, emphasizing that the restriction is mandatory. It observed that the law does not permit any person, merely on account of their interest or personal feelings, to institute criminal prosecution for the defamation of another. The bench noted that the complaint did not allege that the book contained any imputation concerning the complainant personally, but rather focused on the portrayal of Swami Ramdev.

Referring to the precedent in G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan vs. T.V. Chokkappa, the Court reiterated that while a member of a well-defined class may maintain a complaint, the class must be definite and identifiable. In the present case, the general collection of followers was deemed too indeterminate. The Court also drew support from Dhirendra Nath Sen and Another v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra ( "AIR 1970 Cal 216": 1969 CaseBase(CAL) 71) and Ganesh Anand Chela v. Swami Divyanand ( "(1980) 17 DLT 492": 1980 CaseBase(DEL) 76), which established that the grievance of a disciple shared by others does not grant the status of a "person aggrieved".

Absence of Mandatory Sanction and Lack of Ingredients

Regarding the charges under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the Court found a fatal procedural flaw. Under Section 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, previous sanction from the government is a condition precedent. Furthermore, the Court observed that the allegations did not meet the high threshold of 'deliberate and malicious intention' required to outrage religious feelings. Citing Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, the bench noted that Section 295-A does not penalize every act of insult offered unwittingly or carelessly.

The Court has the following directions:

"...to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and otherwise to secure the ends of justice, this application is allowed. Accordingly, the orders dated 07-10-2017 and 09-10-2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Hajipur, Vaishali, in Complaint Case No. 2259(C) of 2017, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom concerning the petitioner, are hereby quashed."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The grievance of a disciple arising from an alleged defamation of his Guru, even if shared by other disciples, cannot by itself confer upon such disciples the legal status of a 'person aggrieved'. The statutory requirement under Section 199(1) cannot be enlarged on the basis of personal sentiments or association."

Background

The dispute arose after Amit Kumar, a follower of Swami Ramdev, filed a complaint in Vaishali alleging that the book "Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Swami Ramdev" published by the petitioner defamed his leader. The complainant alleged the book made Swami Ramdev responsible for the deaths of certain individuals and depicted him as an illiterate son of a poor farmer, thereby hurting the sentiments of his followers and the Hindu religion.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 295-A, 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner moved the High Court, relying on Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj regarding the mandatory nature of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for accused residing outside the jurisdiction, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the limits of quashing powers. The petitioner also cited Maulik Kotak v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the complaint was vague and Manoj Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( "(1999) 1 SCC 728": 1998 CaseBase(SC) 900) to challenge the lack of sanction. The High Court ultimately found that the prosecution suffered from fundamental legal infirmities and quashed the entire proceeding.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10548 of 2018
Case Title: M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Adv., Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 3974