The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by the Telangana unit of the BJP challenging an order of the High Court setting aside a defamation case against Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.
The original defamation case was filed by Mr. Revanth Reddy against an unnamed individual over undisclosed reasons in 2023. However, the High Court’s order setting aside the initial defamation case was based on the principle of immunity granted to politicians for their speeches made in the course of political debate and discussion.
In a statement during the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Gavai said, “If you are in politics, you should have a thick skin. Dismissed.” The court also imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh on the petitioner.
This ruling is significant as it underscores the constitutional protections afforded to politicians during political debates and discussions. It reinforces the principle that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, especially in the context of political discourse.
The BJP’s Telangana unit had argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law and that it infringed upon their right to seek redress for defamatory statements made against their leader. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, upholding the High Court’s ruling.
The case has been closely watched by legal experts and political observers alike, given its potential implications for political discourse and the balance between freedom of speech and the protection of individuals from defamatory statements.
As the dust settles on this landmark decision, attention now turns to how it might influence future cases involving politicians and defamation.
