Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Lawyer For Posting Book Extracts On Mamata Banerjee's 'Personal Life'

“Neither the term 'public function' nor its nature nor its degree has been defined anywhere in the Code. Therefore, broadly speaking, each and every second of Hon'ble Chief Minister's presence in her chamber is for the discharge of her official duties, and to prove that while she was in her office she was acting beyond her official duties, is upon the person who claims so. Therefore, any meeting with any person in her office chamber is deemed to have been arranged for official purpose unless the contrary is proved,” the court noted.

Background

A book was published in 2015 stating that the West Bengal CM had married a person clandestinely before assuming the post of CM. The author of the book had attempted to claim that the CM's claim of being an unmarried lady was untrue.

The author had also disclosed that he had written a letter to the CM on April 30, 2012, asking her information on whether one Ghosh had attended her oath-taking ceremony on May 20, 2011 and in what capacity. The author had also questioned her on whether the said person was present beforehand at her official chamber and how the same was organised.

Bagchi had uploaded parts from the book including this letter, on social media platforms and had also allegedly made comments touching upon the personal life of the CM. Following this, the public prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 356 (2) (criminal defamation) BNS, availing the privilege of the Minister as per Section 222(2) of the BNSS after obtaining statutory sanction.

After giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the Chief Judge City Sessions Court, Calcutta on took cognisance of the offence and ordered for issuance of summons.

Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumdar, appearing for Bagchi, argued that the book was published long ago and had not been banned nor was its publication restricted by the government. It was also argued that Bagchi had merely posted a copy of the letter and thus would not be punishable for offences under Section 356(2) of BNSS. It was also argued that even if it was admitted that the statement made was defamatory, it was not in connection with the discharge of official duty and thus the Public Prosecutor could not have initiated the complaint.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the court could not conduct a mini-trial at the time of taking cognisance and must act on the basis of prima facie materials available. It was argued that Bagchi had the habit of maligning the heads of State. it was argued that there was no provision in the CrPC for discharging a person accused in a summons case.

Findings

The court noted that in the present case, the matter in connection with the alleged undisclosed marriage of the CM was a personal matter, however, the author had also questioned the CM on the presence of an individual during her oath-taking ceremony.

The court thus opined that the scope of official duty or public function in the present case, had to be looked at with appropriate evidence.

With respect to the petitioner's claim that mere reproduction of the book is not an offence, the court relied on various decisions passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts and held that the republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner as the original author. The court added that even though no action was taken against the original author, it would not be a ground for a subsequent publisher to avoid the rigours of law, and he had a legal duty to justify his actions.

“From the above it is transpired that republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner like the original author. Every re-publication of such material gives rise to a new cause of action and therefore, even no action is taken when the same was originally published, the same cannot be a ground for the subsequent publisher, who does it on his own peril, to avoid the rigours of law, and, therefore, he is under a legal duty to justify his action,” the court said.

Though Bagchi also contended that the said book had not been banned in the State and therefore its reproduction could not be actionable, the court noticed that the author had specified in the book that it should not be printed, published, sold, or distributed without his permission.

The court noted that when the author himself had created an embargo against reproduction of the book without permission, no one could reproduce the same.

"In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which calls for any interference from this Court. The order dated 18/06/2025 of the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta is hereby affirmed. However, I make it clear that any observation made in this case is only for the purpose of disposal of this revisional application and is, thus, tentative," the court added.

The plea was dismissed. 

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Samrat Mondal, Adv

Counsel for State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP

Case Title: Koustav Bagchi v. The State of West Bengal and Another

Citation:

Case NO: CRR 2817 of 2025