MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings initiated in 2016 for libel by a builder against homebuyers in Mumbai who protested against him by putting up a banner. The SC also set aside a Bombay High Court order that granted them no relief from the criminal prosecution.
“A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud,” the SC bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh held.
The apex court said that the manner of the protest resorted to by homebuyers was peaceful and orderly and without using offensive or abusive language in any manner. “It could not be said that (homebuyers) crossed the Lakshman Rekha and transgressed into the offending zone,” said the SC, observing that their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope, and ambit of exception 9 (imputation made in good faith by a person for protection of their interests) to Section 499 Indian Penal Code (defamation).
The homebuyers’ peaceful protest is protected by freedom of speech and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to form associations or cooperative societies, fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, the SC ruled. “The criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process,” the SC held. It observed, “Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance.”
Not satisfied with the services provided by the developer and when, according to them, repeated entreaties did not elicit a response, the homebuyers decided to resort to a unique form of protest by putting out a banner of protest against the builder. Advocates Sureshan P and Ajay Panicker for Shahed Kamal and other homebuyers, who petitioned the SC against a June 2024 HC judgment, argued that no offence was made out and buyers were only trying to protect their interests.
The builder, Surti Developers, represented by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Prasenjit Keswani, argued that the homebuyers’ motive was allegedly to lower his reputation in the eye of the public at large and caused mental agony and injury.
The SC also referred to a US District Court judgment of 1974, which held that just as sellers have access to consumers via advertising, peaceful informational activities by consumer organisations must also be protected. Observing that the buyers didn’t exceed any restrictions that the constitution or law placed on them, the SC said, “What is significant, therefore, is that in a given case, the language employed could be a clear pointer to decide whether the accused in the case has exceeded his privilege.
We have already found that the appellants could not have said anything less in the poster/banner as they believed that this was rightful and legitimate to highlight their grievances, which they contend were ignored earlier.”