The Calcutta High Court affirms that a Public Prosecutor can initiate defamation complaints under Section 222(2) BNSS 2023 only when the alleged defamatory statement relates to the public functionary’s conduct in discharge of public functions. The judgment upholds established precedent, clarifies the evidentiary requirements at the cognizance stage, and reinforces individual accountability for republication of defamatory material. This decision is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal and has persuasive value for other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/2817/2025 of Koustav Bagchi Vs State of West Bengal And Anr |
| CNR | WBCHCA0297232025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench, Apurba Sinha Ray, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established precedent; applies Bhajan Lal, K.K. Mishra, Adalat Prasad, etc. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Defamation; Procedural Law (BNSS & BNS 2023) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Public Prosecutors may only initiate complaints under Section 222(2) BNSS 2023 for defamatory statements that pertain to the conduct of a listed public functionary in discharge of public functions. Statements about purely personal matters of a public functionary fall outside this provision; only the aggrieved individual can lodge a complaint for such statements. However, if allegedly defamatory statements reference the official capacity, venue, or conduct of the public functionary, evidence must be adduced to clarify their true nature. The Court reaffirmed that republication or reposting of defamatory content constitutes a fresh actionable offence, regardless of whether the original publication was prosecuted or banned. At the cognizance stage, the trial court is not required to exhaustively assess evidence; issuance of summons based on prima facie material stands unless a clear legal bar exists. The Court dismissed the revisional application, affirming the lower court’s issuance of summons. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Applicant, an advocate and politician, posted certain pages from a 2015 book—alleging secret marriage and personal details of the current Chief Minister—on social media and television. The State (via Public Prosecutor) initiated a defamation complaint against the applicant under Section 356(2) BNS 2023 and Section 222(2) BNSS after obtaining necessary sanction. The trial court issued summons after hearing the applicant. The applicant challenged this, arguing (1) the book was not banned nor its author prosecuted, (2) the applicant was merely reproducing public material, and (3) Public Prosecutor’s complaint did not relate to the Chief Minister’s public functions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P.; Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that complaints by Public Prosecutors under Section 222(2) BNSS 2023 are maintainable only if the alleged defamation specifically relates to the public functionary’s conduct in discharge of public functions.
- Affirmation that every republication, reposting, or sharing of defamatory content constitutes a fresh actionable offence, irrespective of whether the original publication was prosecuted or banned.
- Reinforces requirement that copyright permissions must be respected—even republication of material from an available book may be legally actionable if consent not obtained.
- Dismissal at the threshold (cognizance stage) is not warranted unless there is a clear legal bar; evidence on whether the conduct in question was purely personal or related to public functions is to be assessed at trial.
- The mere availability or non-banning of a book is not a defence to subsequent individual liability for defamation upon republication.
- Emphasises the indispensable role of the Public Prosecutor in independently applying mind before initiating such proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court commenced by outlining the textual requirements of Section 222(2) BNSS 2023: Public Prosecutors may only file complaints in respect of defamatory statements against specified public functionaries made “in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions.”
- Examined the meaning of “conduct” (with references to Black’s, Cambridge, and Oxford Dictionaries) to establish that conduct in an official setting may, with evidence, fall within this section’s scope, even if some acts seem personal.
- Distinguished between defamatory statements relating to personal/private life (where only the aggrieved person may complain) and those referencing or made during official functions or in governmental venues (where further inquiry is needed).
- Affirmed, via precedents (Kaikhusuru Naroji Kabraji, Arvind Kejriwal, Ruchi Kalra, Stern v. Piper, Amber Quiry), the settled law that republication/reposting or hyperlinking of defamatory content is independently actionable identical to the original publication.
- Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and K.K. Mishra to clarify when a complaint/FIR may be quashed and the statutory function and duties of a Public Prosecutor—especially the need for independent application of mind and satisfaction, not mere execution of government order.
- Concluded that at the initial (summons) stage, unless a clear bar exists, the trial court should not enter into evidentiary mini-trials or definitive findings; production of evidence regarding the “public function” nature of the statements is necessary.
- Held the revisional petition maintainable but dismissed for want of a substantive legal bar preventing continuation of trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The book was published in 2015 and not banned or restricted by any government order.
- The applicant only reposted content already publicly available; the author was not prosecuted.
- For any alleged defamation concerning purely personal matters, only the aggrieved person (here, Chief Minister) can file a complaint; the Public Prosecutor cannot invoke Section 222(2) BNSS 2023 as these allegations do not relate to conduct in public functions.
- Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P. to support the above contentions.
Respondent (State)
- At cognizance stage, no mini trial should be conducted; court should act on prima facie materials.
- After opportunity of hearing and consideration of material, trial court correctly issued summons.
- Mens rea to malign the Chief Minister is apparent from the applicant’s conduct.
- No provision under CrPC/BNSS for discharge in summons cases.
- Relied on Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement to support the trial court’s approach.
Factual Background
An advocate-politician posted pages from a 2015 book—alleging undisclosed marriage and personal details of the current Chief Minister—on social media and made related comments on TV. The book itself was not banned and remained available. Following social media publication, the Public Prosecutor, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, filed a defamation complaint against the applicant under Section 356(2) BNS 2023 and Section 222(2) BNSS 2023—after obtaining government sanction—alleging the statements were defamatory to the Chief Minister in the context of her public office. The trial court issued summons to the applicant. The applicant sought dismissal, arguing lack of jurisdiction for the Public Prosecutor under these circumstances; the trial court declined.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 222 BNSS 2023 was quoted and analyzed; sub-section (2) allows the Public Prosecutor to file complaints for defamation only where the alleged offence concerns the “conduct in the discharge of public functions” of specified high public officials.
- Section 356(2) BNS 2023 defines the relevant defamation offence.
- Court emphasized that “public function” is not defined in BNSS, requiring contextual and evidentiary assessment on a case-by-case basis.
- The embargo in Section 222(1)—that only a person aggrieved can complain about personal matters—remains; subsection (2) is not a blanket provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were delivered; judgment authored solely by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray.
Procedural Innovations
- Court clarified that revisional petitions challenging valid cognizance orders under BNSS remain maintainable under the equivalent of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).
- The approach to hearing under Section 223 BNSS is strictly limited to prima facie case from complaint and documents alone at the admission stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law (including Bhajan Lal, K.K. Mishra, Adalat Prasad) is affirmed and clarified.