Ram jethmalani vs subramanian swamy

This case is in itself famous because of two reasons, one that is it is one of the good pronounced judgment, second that it is between two great legal birds of India, one of them that is Subramaniam Swamy also connected with politics. Whenever tort in India discussed, defamation is something always referred to, in flow of same this case comment is designed to have in depth understanding of this case which is pronounced by Delhi HC. Facts of The Case: While M.C.Jain commission of inquiry was examining the facts and circumstances under commission of inquiry act 1952 relating to assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, in which then CM of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalitha's summon to the court was being contemplated in court. Defendant (Subramaniam Swamy) alleged that the then CM of Tamil Nadu had prior info of the attack and she had connection with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ellam (LTTE), however he denied to disclose the source of information. Plaintiff (Ram Jethmalani ) engaged as senior counsel to represent CM .Plaintiff cross examined the statements of defendant , in the same defendant made a remark against Mr Jethmalani to the effect that he has two wives which was not at all relevant however he apologized for the same for hurting but still stucked with his statement. On 14.10.1995 when defendant submitted the "Written Concluding Argument " in which he denied to give source of information of that allegation and also said that " According to my information , Mr Jethmalani has been receiving...

By Jasashwee Mishra & Amit Sheoran (Team LL.B Mania) Defendant Appellant – Subramaniam Swamy Plaintiff Respondent – Ram Jethmalani Facts While the M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry reviewed the details and conditions of the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 involving the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, within which the then chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalitha’s summon to court was being considered. Defendant (Subramaniam Swamy) alleged that the then Tamil Nadu CM had foreknowledge about the attempt and had a relation with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ellam (LTTE), however, refused to disclose the credibility of the leaks. Plaintiff (Ram Jethmalani) appointed as senior counsel to defend CM. Plaintiff verified the defendant’s allegations and in the same, also reviewed the defendant’s personal remark against Mr. Jethmalani to the effect that he has two wives which was not at all relevant. However, he later apologized for the same remark. On 14.10.1995, when the appellant sent a “Written Concluding Argument ” in which he declined to provide even a source of evidence on the accusation and also claimed that ” Thus according to my information, Mr. Jethmalani has been receiving payments from the LTTE being transferred in his son’s account in CITIBANK in New York”, because that assertion was not for the client but for the lawyer. In the case of such an accusation, the plaintiff brought a suit, charging that the defendant was guilty of vicious and malicious libel for which the pla...

Ilankai Tamil Sangam 27th Year on the Web Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA Subramanian Swamy, the Loonyswamy of Madurai by Sachi Sri Kantha, August 14, 2012 I checked Swamy’s website [http://www.janataparty.org/president.html]. It seems that for false prestige, he is still living in 1998. Two sentences of his profile state, “He is a political leader with a difference. Presently he represents the historic city of Madurai in Lok Sabha, his faith term in Parliament, elected in 1998.” There is no dispute about the first sentence. See the next two paragraphs for the views of Najma Heptullah and Ram Jethmalani. But, the fact in the second sentence deserves correction. Swamy’s term as an MP for Madurai lasted only one year. He has yet update it to 2012, though India had seen general elections in 1999, 2004 and 2009! ... “Dr Swamy belongs to that breed of men who want to be bridegroom at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.” Don’t get me wrong. But I have to give due credit that General Sarath Fonseka was partially right when he mentioned in December 2008 that Tamilnadu politicians are jokers. The leader of this jokers pack, Subramanian Swamy, has now become the toast of Colombo. The Colombo Daily Mirror of August 10th carried the caption, “Victory over the LTTE should be honoured- Dr Swamy.” This ‘loonyswamy’ has proposed that India should honor President Mahinda Rajapaksa with a Bharat Ratna award. Ha! Ha! Ha! I assure the readers that the conjectural word...

“Only a low life person would find joy in destroying other people’s lives through Defamation of character” INTRODUCTION: In India, defamation consists of both offenses civil and criminal. The remedy for civil nature comes under the Law of Torts. In civil defamation, a person who is defamed can file a case in either the High court or the Subordinate court and can seek damage in the form of monetary compensation from the accused. But here we will talk about the criminal nature of defamation with the help of sectionS 499 and 500 of IPC. What is Defamation? According to Section 499 of IPC, Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes 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. Section 499 also quotes the explanations and the exceptions for the act of defamation. EXPLANATIONS: Explanation 1- In a case, if someone defames any deceased person by any means written, spoken, gestures or pictures it will consider as defamation, this act would have damaged the reputation of the person if he would have been still alive or in case it damages the image of his family and near relatives. Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. This means ...

• Recently, an MP (Member of Parliament) was sentenced to two years in jail in a 2019 Defamation Case over his remarks about another political leader by the Surat Court. • The case was filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500, dealing with defamation. What do IPC sections 499 and 500 say? • Section 499 of the IPC elaborates on how defamation could be through words – spoken or intended to be read, through signs, and also through visible representations. • These can either be published or spoken about a person with the intention of damaging the reputation of that person, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm his reputation. • Section 500 stipulates imprisonment of up to two years, with or without a fine, for someone held guilty of criminal defamation. What Is Defamation? • Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person when observed through the eyes of an ordinary man. • Any false and unprivileged statement published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, knowingly with the intention to damage someone’s reputation is defamation. • History of defamation can be traced in Roman law and German law. Abusive chants were capital punishment in Roman. Free Speech v/s Defamation laws: • It is argued that the defamation laws are a violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution. • The Supreme Court has ruled that the criminal provisions of...

• About us • • • • • • • Prelims • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Practice Quiz • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mains & Interview • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Current Affairs • • • • • • • • • Drishti Specials • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Test Series • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • State PCS • • • • • • • • • Videos • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Quick Links For Prelims: Parliament, Indian Penal Code, RPA Act 1951, Supreme Court, Fundamental Rights For Mains: Defamation Law Why in News? Recently, an MP (Member of Parliament)was sentenced to two years in jail in a 2019 Defamation Case over his remarks about another political leader by the Surat Court. • The case was filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500, dealing with defamation. What do IPC sections 499 and 500 say? • Section 499 of the IPC elaborates on how defamation could be through words – spoken or intended to be read, through signs, and also through visible representations. • These can either be published or spoken about a person with the intention of damaging the reputation of that person, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm his reputation. • Section 500 stipulates imprisonment of up to two years, with or without a fine, for someone held guilty of criminal defamation. What Is Defamation? • About: • Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the r...