'Prima Facie Derogatory': Ajmer Court Takes Cognizance Of Defamation Complaint Against Drishti IAS Founder For Alleged Remarks On Judiciary

Taking partial cognizance of a complaint against public educator and founder of Drishti IAS coaching Dr Vikas Divyakriti accused of defamation in connection with a Youtube Video, a Rajasthan court said that there was strong "prima facie" evidence to show that Divyakirti with a malicious intent to gain petty publicity used "derogatory and sarcastic language against the judiciary". 

The video in question is  “IAS vs Judge: कौन ज्यादा ताकतवर है | (“Who is more powerful?”) best Guidance by Vikas Divyakirti sir Hindi Motivation". The complaint was filed under BNS Sections 353(2) (public mischief), 356(2),(3) (defamtation)2023 and Section 66A(b) IT Act. 

Section 66A(b) states any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device. 

Directing the registration of the matter in the criminal register, the court asked Divyakriti to appear on the next date of hearing.

For context Section 356 BNS pertains to Defamation and states that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

After considering the contentions, the impugned video and the judgments Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 02 Ajmer Manmohan Chandel in his July 8 order said:

"We have respectfully observed all the judicial precedents mentioned above and obtained guidance from them, from which the well-established legal position emerges that at the stage of cognizance, the court is not required to evaluate the material present on record piece by piece, but only these facts have to be considered whether on the basis of the material present on record and the quality of evidence, prima facie facts and grounds are available for taking further action against the accused or not. At this stage, it is never to be seen whether the accused will be convicted on the basis of the material present on record or not. In the case pending before us also, there is prima facie strong evidence on record to the effect that the accused Vikas Divyakirti, with malicious intent to gain petty publicity, used derogatory, derogatory and sarcastic language against the judiciary which includes not only the judges but also the advocates as court officers, and with the malicious intent to sensationalise the video, used such words and sentences in the entire video". 

The court further said that the "judiciary has been ridiculed, due to which the dignity, impartiality and reputation of every person associated with the judiciary has been damaged, and the image and credibility of the judiciary has been tarnished".

It said that the "possibility of confusion, distrust and doubt towards the judiciary" arising among the general public cannot be ruled out.

"Consequently, the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant Kamlesh Mandoliya is partially accepted and cognizance is taken of the offence under Section 356 (1) (2), (3) (4) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023 against the accused Vikas Divyakirti (Founder and Managing Director), Institute...The case should be registered as a criminal register. The complainant should present the list of witnesses. The other relief sought by the complainant is rejected and dismissed as the necessary elements in relation to other criminal sections are not present on record. Since the accused party has participated in the hearing in the case at the pre-cognizance stage, the accused should be kept in person on the next hearing, in case of non-compliance of the order, legal orders will be passed. Appear on the date in sequence of consent of both the parties for the order to see the file". 

Background

The complainant allegedly felt “insulted and humiliated” by the video which was circulated publicly.

It was asserted by the complainant that the remarks contained in the video were comparing IAS officers and judges in a derogatory manner, disparaging the judiciary and judicial officers. 

The complainant submitted that the video was hurtful towards the sentiments of the legal professionals and also the public's faith in the judiciary.

On the contrary, it was the case of the Divyakriti that he had no connection with the YouTube channel on which the video was uploaded and that the video was edited and published by a third party without consent.

"I categorically submit that I have no connection, control, or involvement with the YouTube channel which has uploaded the alleged offending video.The said video was neither published nor authorized by Drishti IAS or any person acting on my behalf. It appears to have been extracted and uploaded by an unaffiliated third party without my knowledge or consent," he said in his response to show cause notice. He further said that complainant lacks locus standi as an "aggrieved person" under S.356 BNS, and the Complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed at the very outset since the Complainant has not been personally referred to or identified in the subject matter content, nor has any specific class or community to which he demonstrably belongs to, been targeted.

Furthermore, in relation to the content of the video, while underscoring the right of freedom of speech and expression, Divyakriti submitted that no specific individual or identifiable groups were targeted in the video which was a general commentary on public administration.

Findings

The Court perused the evidence available on record and held that prima facie evidence available on record suggested that the language used in the video was derogatory, offensive and belittling towards the judiciary, violating the dignity of judicial institutions.

On Divyakriti's contention regarding freedom of speech the court said that Freedom of speech is to be protected but this right has been granted with certain restrictions.

"Under the guise of this right, no person/organisation can insult, defame or defame the judiciary or judges and neither can any person be allowed to attack the impartiality and dignity of the courts/judges by publicising and disseminating such videos. As has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in re; Arundhati Roy, the contemnor vs. Contempt Petition No. 10/2001, judgment dated 06.03.2002 and In re; Prashant Bhushan vs. Court, suo motu contempt (Criminal Petition No. 01/2020). As a result, the said argument of the accused party is also rejected and dismissed as it does not appear to be acceptable," it said. 

It further said that if the accused party had any kind of bad intention or ill will to malign, defame and insult the dignity of the judiciary or was expressed in good faith, then also during the opportunity given to the accused by the court to present his side, "he could have apologized in writing with a sense of remorse for the said controversial video and expressed regret for uploading and making the so-called controversial video, but he did not choose this option".

The court said that till date, there is no evidence on record that any notice of any kind has been sent to the so-called individual/institution/channel through which the so-called video is uploaded, or that any strict or general objection has been expressed to the uploading of the video of the accused, nor has the accused party presented such evidence in its written reply.

"This fact is also very important because it is well known that any person, especially when he gives any speech in the context of online/offline education as a director/teacher of an institution, then he is aware of the recording of that speech, so much so that the recording is done only with the permission and approval of the institution/director and its subscription is sold after receiving the appropriate fee. In such a case, it cannot be said that the person who has given the speech in the video is not aware that the speech given by him will not be publicized and broadcast. In the case at hand also, the above facts were probably in the knowledge of the accused Vikas Divyakirti. Consequently, the objection taken as aforesaid is also rejected and dismissed," it added. 

The matter is next listed on July 22. 

Case Title: Kamlesh Mandoliya v Vikas Divyakirti