Public Prosecutor’s Role in Political Defamation

Case Summary: Koustav Bagchi Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Facts Of The Case

Facts: The case arose from a controversy surrounding a book published in 2015 which contained certain passages and allegations about the personal life of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal. The author of the book had claimed that the Chief Minister had been secretly married prior to assuming office and had attempted to conceal this fact from the public. The book described the alleged relationship and questioned the integrity and honesty of the Chief Minister, suggesting that her public persona did not match her private conduct.

In the same book, the author published a letter dated 30 April 2012 addressed to the Chief Minister in her capacity as Chairperson of the All India Trinamool Congress. The letter contained two specific questions — whether a particular individual (allegedly her spouse) had attended her oath-taking ceremony at Raj Bhavan on 20 May 2011, and whether that individual was present in her official chamber at the Writers’ Buildings on the same day when she assumed charge as Chief Minister. These questions, according to the author, were meant to expose what he described as “undisclosed facts of her personal life.”

The book was never banned or restricted by any government order and continued to be sold publicly.

The petitioner, Koustav Bagchi, an advocate and political figure, uploaded certain pages from the book—particularly the page containing the 2012 letter—on social media platforms. He also made comments on television channels referring to the same content. This act led to allegations that he had defamed the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta filed a complaint under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), corresponding to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, invoking Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which allows the Public Prosecutor to file a defamation complaint on behalf of certain public functionaries such as the President, Governors, or Ministers for defamatory acts committed against them in the discharge of their official duties.

Procedural Background

Procedural Background: Upon receiving the complaint, the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, after hearing the petitioner as required under Section 223 of the BNSS, took cognizance of the offence under Section 356(2) BNS and issued summons to the petitioner.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision application before the Calcutta High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the CrPC), seeking to quash the proceedings. He raised three principal arguments.

• First, that the book had been published nearly a decade earlier and was freely available in the market, and therefore, merely reproducing its content on social media did not constitute a new offence.
• Second, that since the original author had not been prosecuted and the book had not been banned, his act of reproduction could not be treated as defamation.
• Third, that even if the statements were defamatory, they did not relate to the Chief Minister’s conduct in discharge of her public duties, and therefore, the Public Prosecutor had no authority to initiate proceedings under Section 222(2) BNSS; only the Chief Minister herself could have done so as an aggrieved person.

The State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the revision, arguing that at the stage of cognizance, the Court should not conduct a detailed inquiry or “mini-trial” but only see whether a prima facie case existed. He relied on Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221), to emphasize that the trial court had correctly taken cognizance on the basis of the material on record.

The Core Dispute

The key legal questions before the Court were:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 222(2) of the BNSS was maintainable when the allegedly defamatory statements concerned the personal life of the Chief Minister and not her conduct in discharge of official duties.
2. Whether mere reproduction or sharing of a previously published book on social media amounted to fresh defamation, attracting criminal liability.
3. Whether the learned Chief Judge erred in issuing summons to the petitioner without sufficient grounds.

Judicial Reasoning And Analysis

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis: Court undertook a detailed examination…

Decision

Decision: The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 18 June 2025…

Conclusion

Conclusion: This judgment in Koustav Bagchi v. The State of West Bengal sheds light…

Case Details

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The information shared here…

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi