Latest news with #Section500
New Straits Times
4 days ago
- New Straits Times
Actor files police report over defamatory social media post
KUALA LUMPUR: Police received a report from a local actor and singer over an alleged defamatory and provocative social media post made on the 'Threads' platform. Acting Kuala Lumpur police chief, Datuk Mohamed Usuf Jan Mohamad, confirmed this with the New Straits Times, adding that the post was claimed to have damaged the complainant's reputation. "The report was filed at 4.12pm on July 18 over a post by the owner of a social media account, which allegedly contained slanderous, provocative, and seditious elements. "The post was made publicly and is believed to have the potential to tarnish the complainant's image and reputation," he said. He added that the case is being investigated under Section 500 of the Penal Code for defamation and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which covers the misuse of network facilities. Those convicted under Section 500 could be liable for a maximum two years' jail, a fine, or both. Section 233 stipulates a maximum fine of RM500,000 or two years' jail or both if found guilty, as well as a further fine of RM5,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction. Usuf said that this case is not related to the ongoing investigation involving local artiste Shila Amzah. "This case has no connection to the Shila Amzah matter," he said, addressing speculation linking the two.
Indian Express
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Unable' to attend court, complainant withdraws defamation cases against Nawab Malik
Proceedings against Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Nawab Malik were closed after BJP's Mohit Bharatiya withdrew the two defamation cases filed against him. The withdrawal follows a plea filed by Malik before the magistrate court seeking to dispose of the case as Bharatiya had not appeared in court during the last 15 hearings to record his statement. Bharatiya filed an affidavit before the court stating that he was voluntarily withdrawing the plea. 'That since this Hon'ble Court is desirous of keeping the said case on day-to-day basis, I am desirous to withdraw the case filed against the accused in the above-referenced matter as, I will be unable to attend this Hon'ble Court on daily basis,' the affidavit said. The cases pertained to remarks allegedly made by Malik during an investigation by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) into the 2021 raid on a cruise ship off the Mumbai coast. Bharatiya had alleged that Malik had 'purposefully and intentionally defamed' him and his brother-in-law, following which he filed two defamation complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court summoned Malik after one of the complaints, filed on October 26, 2021. The matter was listed for recording of evidence, where Bharatiya was expected to depose as the complainant. However, according to a plea filed by Malik's lawyer Gaurav Bhawnani, Bharatiya failed to appear for as many as 15 consecutive hearings. On each of the hearings, an adjournment was sought due to non-availability of the complainant, the plea said. Under section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in case of non-appearance of the complainant, the court can acquit the accused. Malik's plea pointed out that while an advocate can appear on a complainant's behalf, personal presence becomes mandatory at the stage of recording evidence. 'The present proceedings have completely stalled due to the repeated absence of the complainant,' the plea stated, adding that Bharatiya's continued absence demonstrated 'no respect' for the valuable time of the court, the accused, or the advocates involved. Another case filed by Bharatiya against Malik, who was then a minister in the Maha Vikas Agadhi (MVA) government, was also withdrawn in 2022.
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi must face trial over 'derogatory' Army remarks during Bharat Jodo Yatra: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case stemming from his Bharat Jodo Yatra remarks about the Army. LUCKNOW: Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench has dismissed Congress MP Rahul Gandhi 's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case linked to his remarks about the Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra held between Sept 2022 and Jan 2023. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled on May 29 that Gandhi must stand trial, observing a prima facie case exists against him. 'Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not include the freedom to make statements defamatory to any person or to the Indian Army,' the court said. The case was filed by retired BRO director Udai Shanker Srivastava, who alleged Gandhi made derogatory comments in Lucknow on Dec 16, 2022, days after a face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. Gandhi had said, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra... but they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2,000 sqkm of Indian land, killing 20 Indian soldiers, and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh... Don't pretend people don't know.' Srivastava called the remarks 'false and baseless', made with an 'evil intention of demoralising the Indian Army and damaging public faith'. He cited the Army's official Dec 12 statement, which described the Dec 9 clash in Arunachal as involving 'minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sutton Coldfield: If You Were Born Between 1940-1975 You Could Be Eligible For This Life Cover Reassured Get Quote Undo On Feb 11 this year, a Lucknow magistrate had summoned Gandhi under Section 500 (defamation) of IPC, saying his comments were not made in discharge of official duty and could demoralise armed forces. Gandhi's lawyer Pranshu Agarwal said in high court the case was politically driven and Srivastava lacked standing under Section 199 CrPC, as the Army—not the petitioner—was the target. Justice Vidyarthi rejected the claim, saying Srivastava was an 'aggrieved person' under the law. The judge said the lower court's summons was based on a 'judicious application of mind' after reviewing complaint details and witness statements, not issued mechanically.
Indian Express
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Freedom of speech doesn't allow freedom to make defamatory remarks against Army: Allahabad HC rejects Rahul's plea
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has rejected a petition filed by Leader of Opposition (LoP) and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi to quash summons against him for alleged derogatory remarks, saying that 'right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Army.' Gandhi made the alleged remarks during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a petition filed by Gandhi challenging the validity of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning him to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code. The applicant also sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint. 'No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the court said. 'At this stage, while examining the validity of the summoning order, this court is not required to go into the merits of the rival claims and that exercise would have to be taken by the trial court after the parties have availed the opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claim / defence,' the court said in its order. 'In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out. The impugned summoning order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and the same is dismissed,' the court added. The defamation complaint against Gandhi is filed by 'Udai Shankar Srivastava, who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organisation, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army, stated that alleged derogatory remarks was made by him [Gandhi] on December 16, 2022 during during his 'Bharat Jodo Yatra' in the presence of mediapersons and a large gathering of public regarding a face-off that took place between the Indian Army and the Chinese Army at the border of India in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022.' According to the complaint, Gandhi purportedly said at the time, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot and what not. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square km of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know…' The complainant also claimed stated that the aforesaid statement given by the applicant is 'false and baseless' and it was given with an intention of demoralising the Army and to damage the faith of the country's population in the Army.
The Hindu
04-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court denies relief to Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army
Observing that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in a defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army. Rejecting Mr. Gandhi's plea challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on May 29 said the trial court was right to summon the Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 'No doubt over the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam (Supra) and Kaushal Kishore (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case,' the Court noted. The matter pertains to a case filed against Mr. Gandhi by a former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that his statements, given after a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. The remarks were made by Mr. Gandhi during the Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Also read: Rahul Gandhi's surrender barb insult of armed forces, says BJP The plea quoted Mr. Gandhi as allegedly saying, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometers of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know.' The lower court in Lucknow had in February summoned Mr. Gandhi in the case, following which the Congress leader approached the High Court. In his plea, Mr. Gandhi said the complainant was not an officer of the Indian Army and hence the defamation case did not hold water. While rejecting the contention of the Congress leader, the High Court noted that under Section 199(1) the Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an 'aggrieved person' if they are impacted by the offence.
