The Madras High Court has said it cannot expect a person complaining of criminal defamation to be philosophically so high to understand that in these times when irregularities, corruption and nepotism had become so common and deep rooted, any office-bearer of a local body who does not toe the line of other ward members or councillors will only be called as “mentally unstable.”

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while confirming the conviction of four former ward members of Vridhachalam Municipality under Section 500 (criminal defamation) of Indian Penal Code for having printed and circulated a handbill describing the then chairman M. Valluvan, an eye surgeon, as mentally unstable because he was a stickler and uncooperative.

The judge, however, set aside the six-month imprisonment ordered by the trial court and directed the convicts S. Ramu, Pushpavenkatavenu and Mohammed Kani to pay the fine amount alone. Out of the total fine, Rs. 2,000 should be paid as compensation to the complainant, he ordered. Though one more convict Durairajulu too had filed an appeal, he died when it was pending adjudication.

Recalling the history of the case, the judge pointed out that Dr. Valluvan had lodged a private complaint against the four ward members in January 2004. According to the complainant, he attempted to cleanse the system by eradicating corruption but the four ward members, representing different political parties, joined hands and defamed him by portraying him as mentally unstable.

After trial, a judicial magistrate in Vridhachalam convicted all four of them in September 2010 and the verdict was confirmed by a Sessions Court too in August 2014 leading to the present revision petition. After perusing a reply given by the convicts’ lawyer to a legal notice issued by the complainant before lodging the complaint, the judge came to a conclusion that the handbill was printed by them.

The reply read: “So, the behaviour of your client on various occasions has prompted my clients to doubt the mental balance of your client… The pamphlet alleged to have been issued by my client can by no stretch of imagination be defamatory. They are informative.” After extracting it, the judge said: “Therefore, I hold that the complainant has proved beyond doubt that the handbill is printed and distributed by the accused.”

Rejecting the argument advanced by the convicts that a person in public life must be thick skinned, the judge said, philosophical expectations could not be accepted as legal contentions. “After all, the complainant has come before the court crying that apart from being the chairman of the municipality, he is an eye surgeon by profession and the innuendo has harmed his reputation even professionally,” he added.