38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, May 03, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Criminal Defamation Case Against Advocate Prashant Bhushan Transferred to Patiala House Court

By LawStreet News Network      10 February, 2020 10:02 PM      0 Comments
Criminal Defamation Case Against Advocate Prashant Bhushan Transferred to Patiala House Court

The Supreme Court on February 10, 2020 transferred the Criminal Defamation case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan from Rohtak in Haryana to Delhi Patiala House Court. Yesterday (9 February, 2020) Bhushan moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of Criminal Defamation case from Haryana to Delhi.

Bhushan claimed that the case is only a Vindictive action against him by Indiabulls to keep him quiet so that he cannot highlight the illegalities of the company.

Indiabulls filed the case in Rohtak, Haryana before Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for publishing a defamatory content on social media platform like- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook to damage their goodwill.

Bhushan further contended in his transfer petition that Indiabulls is doing this to harass him as he is the signing authority and the Secretary of Citizens at the Whistle Blowers Forum that has filed a PIL (WPC 9887/2019) before the Delhi High Court to seek illegalities exercised and violations committed by Indiabulls.

Bhushan has submitted that he is a practicing Advocate in Delhi High Court and  travelling to Haryana is more or less inconvenient and causing him undue difficulty.

Citing further instances Bhushan said-intimidatory legal tactics to overawe and silence those who highlight illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of its business so as to dissuade scrutiny.

Defamation under Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 499 defines Defamation.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 expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other 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. 

Explanation 3.An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. 

Explanation 4.No imputation is said to harm a persons reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation.whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In India, Defamation can be viewed as a civil offence as well as criminal offence and may be defined as the writing, publication and speaking of a false statement which causes injury to reputation and good will for private interest. The remedy for a civil defamation is covered under the Law of Torts.

 

Author: Aarya Mishra



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

madras-hc-shields-ayushmann-khurrana-and-sara-ali-khan-starrer-pati-patni-aur-woh-do-from-piracy-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-isps-and-cable-tv-operators-ahead-of-release
Trending CelebStreet
Madras HC Shields Ayushmann Khurrana and Sara Ali Khan Starrer “Pati Patni Aur Woh Do” from Piracy; Grants Ad Interim Injunction Against ISPs and Cable TV Operators Ahead of Release [Read Order]

Madras High Court grants anti-piracy injunction for Pati Patni Aur Woh Do, restraining ISPs and cable operators ahead of its May 15, 2026 release.

02 May, 2026 02:35 PM
bombay-hc-quashes-fir-against-shekhar-suman-and-bharti-singh-over-ya-allah-rasgulla-dahi-bhalla
Trending CelebStreet
Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh Over “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!” [Read Order]

Bombay High Court quashes 2010 FIR against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh, holding “Rasgulla” and “Dahi Bhalla” are neutral, not religiously offensive.

02 May, 2026 03:51 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-brutal-stabbing-of-woman-advocate-missing-children-hospital-refusal-under-scanner
Trending Judiciary
SC Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Brutal Stabbing of Woman Advocate; Missing Children, Hospital Refusal Under Scanner

Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of Delhi lawyer stabbing case, orders probe into hospital denial and directs police to trace two missing children.

27 April, 2026 04:56 PM
west-bengal-elections-calcutta-hc-expands-motorcycle-restrictions-bars-group-riding
Trending Judiciary
West Bengal Elections Calcutta HC Expands Motorcycle Restrictions, Bars Group Riding [Read Order]

Calcutta High Court bars group motorcycle riding from two days before West Bengal polling, modifying Single Judge order on CEO’s appeal.

28 April, 2026 05:10 PM
mere-absence-of-results-in-hair-treatment-cannot-prove-medical-negligence-or-deficiency-in-service-ncdrc-sets-aside-orders-against-dermatologist-plastic-surgeon-and-lifecell-international
Trending Judiciary
Mere Absence of Results in Hair Treatment Cannot Prove Medical Negligence or Deficiency in Service: NCDRC Sets Aside Orders Against Dermatologist, Plastic Surgeon, and Lifecell International [Read Order]

NCDRC rules that failure of PRP hair treatment alone does not prove negligence, sets aside compensation orders against doctors and Lifecell International.

28 April, 2026 05:51 PM
sc-upholds-translocation-of-deer-from-hauz-khas-deer-park-to-rajasthan-tiger-reserves-directs-moefcc-to-grant-statutory-status-to-cec-wildlife-translocation-guidelines
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds Translocation of Deer from Hauz Khas Deer Park to Rajasthan Tiger Reserves; Directs MoEFCC to Grant Statutory Status to CEC Wildlife Translocation Guidelines [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds deer translocation from Hauz Khas to Rajasthan reserves; directs MoEFCC to grant statutory status to CEC guidelines.

28 April, 2026 05:57 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email