Supreme Court to Hear Shashi Tharoor’s Plea Challenging Defamation Case Over “Scorpion on Shivling” Remark

Keywords: Shashi Tharoor, defamation, Supreme Court, Narendra Modi, scorpion on Shivling, Congress MP, Prime Minister, Delhi High Court, Rajiv Babbar, BJP

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to refuse quashing defamation proceedings against him over his controversial “scorpion on Shivling” remark, allegedly aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The case stems from a 2018 comment by Tharoor, who had cited an unnamed RSS leader’s metaphor comparing Modi to a scorpion on a Shivling.

The Apex Court, which had on September 10 stayed the proceedings before a Delhi trial court, is scheduled to hear the plea before a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti on October 14, as per the updated cause list.

Tharoor’s legal team is seeking to overturn the August 29 order by the Delhi High Court, which held that prima facie, his remarks were “despicable and deplorable” and defamed the Prime Minister, the BJP, and its members. The Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram argues that his comment was based on an article published in The Caravan magazine in 2012, long before he made the public statement, and was a metaphor protected under the defamation law’s immunity clause for statements made in good faith.

During the previous hearing, Justice Roy had expressed surprise at the defamation charge, observing that the original metaphor from 2012 was not considered defamatory when first published. “Eventually it is a metaphor… it refers to the invincibility of the person referred to (Modi),” the bench noted, questioning the basis for objection.

The criminal defamation complaint was filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, who claimed that his religious sentiments were hurt by Tharoor’s remarks. Babbar’s complaint led to Tharoor being summoned by the trial court in April 2019 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to punishment for defamation.

Tharoor’s counsel has argued that Babbar, as well as members of the BJP, cannot be considered “aggrieved parties” under the law, insisting that Tharoor’s statement was made in good faith and did not target any individual directly. The defense maintains that Tharoor’s reference to the metaphor from the Caravan article does not warrant criminal proceedings.

However, the Delhi High Court had vacated the interim stay on proceedings in August 2023, instructing both parties to present themselves before the trial court in September. It concluded that the metaphor, while previously published, was defamatory when used in the context of Modi as Prime Minister, citing enough material for the trial court to proceed with the case.

Tharoor is now seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to set aside the lower court’s summons and dismiss the defamation complaint. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter will not only impact Tharoor but also set a precedent on how political speech and metaphors are interpreted within the bounds of Indian defamation laws.

For more updates on this legal development and insights into India’s political and judicial affairs, follow Kanishk Social Media, your trusted source for in-depth analysis and coverage of key legal cases shaping the country. If you found this article informative, share it with others interested in India’s legal system and political landscape.