Court’s Decision
In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court (Justice Sandeep V. Marne) has held that defamation suits filed on the Original Side of the High Court are governed by Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and not Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, where the wrong complained of is personal injury to reputation. The Court held that no leave under Clause 12 is necessary if the defamatory act, though originating elsewhere, causes reputational harm within the territorial limits of the Court.
In the Court’s words, “The plaintiff complaining loss of reputation within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court can file and maintain a suit for compensation without seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.”
Facts
The plaintiff, a public figure and Chairman of a statutory board, filed a civil suit on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court alleging that two defendants had circulated defamatory videos and social media posts accusing him of corruption and abuse of office. The alleged defamatory content was published on Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube.
The defendants were residents of Pune and Aurangabad, and the defamatory press conference was held at Aurangabad. The plaintiff contended that although the statements originated outside Mumbai, his reputation was damaged in Mumbai, where he holds office and performs his duties.
Initially, the plaintiff had filed a petition seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, but the same was disposed of by another bench observing that the plaint averred that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai. The defendants thereafter objected to jurisdiction, arguing that the defamatory acts occurred outside Mumbai and hence the suit could not proceed without Clause 12 leave.
Issues
- Whether defamation suits filed on the Original Side of the High Court are governed by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or Section 19 of the CPC?
- Whether leave under Clause 12 is mandatory if the defamatory content originates outside Mumbai?
- Whether a plaintiff can sue in Mumbai where his reputation is harmed, even if the defamatory material was published elsewhere?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued that Section 19 of the CPC, which governs suits for “compensation for wrongs to person or movables,” applies to defamation suits even on the Original Side of the High Court. Relying on Section 120 CPC, it was argued that while Sections 16, 17, and 20 are excluded from applying to the High Court, Section 19 remains applicable. Hence, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent—which deals with “other suits”—cannot override Section 19 in cases of personal wrongs.
He emphasized that the injury to reputation was suffered in Mumbai, where he resides professionally and carries on his work. Since the “wrong done” occurred at Mumbai when the defamatory content was accessed there, the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction without requiring Clause 12 leave.
Counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries (AIR 1975 Bom 197), where the Court interpreted “wrong done” in Section 19 to include the place where the harm is suffered, and Convergytics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Randhir Hebbar (2021 SCC OnLine Del 4811), holding that internet publications are accessible pan-India, conferring jurisdiction wherever the reputation is affected.
Respondent’s Arguments
The defendants challenged the jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiff resided at Aurangabad, where the alleged press conference was held, and the social media uploads occurred at Pune and Aurangabad. The defamatory acts were completed there, and therefore any damage to reputation would also occur at Aurangabad.
They contended that the cause of action arose only outside Mumbai, and that even if access to the posts was possible from Mumbai, that would constitute only a part of the cause of action, necessitating leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
The defendants relied on:
- Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No.157 of 2016), to argue that failure to obtain Clause 12 leave before numbering the suit is fatal;
- Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Inc. (AIR 2005 SC 514), to assert that the Letters Patent overrides CPC in case of conflict; and
- Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents and Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009 SCC OnLine Del 4410), to contend that defamation suits must be filed where the reputation is primarily hit—here, Aurangabad.
Analysis of the Law
The Court traced the legislative structure of the CPC, distinguishing between three categories of suits:
- Suits relating to immovable property (Sections 16–17);
- Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables (Section 19); and
- “Other suits” (Section 20).
Under Section 120 CPC, Sections 16, 17, and 20 are expressly excluded from applying to the High Court’s Original Civil Jurisdiction—but Section 19 is not. This deliberate legislative omission implies that Section 19 continues to apply to the High Court in cases of defamation and similar personal wrongs.
The Court reasoned that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent governs “suits relating to land or property” and “other suits” (akin to Section 20 CPC), but does not specifically cover suits for wrongs to person or movables, leaving Section 19 operative in such matters.
Quoting Sarvodaya Industries, the Court noted that “the phrase ‘wrong done’ is not to be used in a narrow sense but must include both the act complained of and its resultant effect.” Hence, a person suffering reputational damage at a place where the defamatory material is read, viewed, or circulated has the right to sue there.
Precedent Analysis
- Sarvodaya Industries v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1975 Bom 197):
Interpreted Section 19 CPC broadly to include not just the place where the wrong is committed but also where its effects are felt, recognizing that in defamation, the “wrong” occurs at the place of publication and injury. - Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents (2009 SCC OnLine Del 4410):
Held that defamation occurs where the defamatory material is read or heard, granting jurisdiction to Delhi since the publication was accessible and caused harm there. - Convergytics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Randhir Hebbar (2021 SCC OnLine Del 4811):
Held that online publications accessible nationwide confer jurisdiction at every place where the defamatory statement can be viewed. - Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Inc. (AIR 2005 SC 514):
Relied upon by defendants but distinguished; the Court clarified that there is no conflict between Section 19 CPC and Clause 12, as both operate in different fields. - Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. (2017 Bom):
The Court observed that Clause 12 leave is mandatory for suits governed by Section 20 CPC, but not applicable where Section 19 governs jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court meticulously held that the absence of Section 19 from Section 120 CPC was a deliberate legislative choice ensuring that victims of personal wrongs could seek redress where harm is suffered, even if the act originated elsewhere.
It emphasized that in defamation suits, the determinative factor is not where the statement was made, but where its impact was felt. The Court ruled:
“The concept of accrual of cause of action, either wholly or in part, is inapplicable to suits governed by Section 19. The place where the wrong is suffered determines jurisdiction.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded loss of reputation at Mumbai, where the defamatory posts were accessible and where he functioned as Chairman of a public body. Therefore, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction, and Clause 12 leave was unnecessary.
Conclusion
The Court rejected the defendants’ objection to jurisdiction and affirmed that Section 19 CPC applies to defamation suits filed on the Original Side. It held that the Bombay High Court has territorial jurisdiction since the plaintiff’s reputation was injured within Mumbai, even though the impugned statements were made elsewhere.
The Court observed that requiring Clause 12 leave in such cases would “deny litigants the benefit of a special statutory provision” and would defeat the purpose of Section 19.
“The plaintiff complaining loss of reputation within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court can file and maintain a suit for compensation without seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.”
The Court thus ordered continuation of interim injunction against further publication of defamatory content and listed the matter for further hearing.
Implications
This judgment significantly clarifies the territorial jurisdiction in defamation suits, especially those involving online or digital publications. It establishes that:
- Section 19 CPC governs personal injury suits (including defamation) even on the High Court’s Original Side.
- Clause 12 leave is not required when harm to reputation is suffered within the Court’s jurisdiction.
- Online defamation can confer jurisdiction wherever the content is accessed and reputational injury occurs.
The ruling will have wide ramifications for cyber defamation cases, reinforcing the right of victims to sue in the place where their reputation is harmed, thereby modernizing jurisdictional principles in the age of social media.
