Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Lawyer Over Posts On Book Excerpts About Mamata Banerjee’s Personal Life
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Calcutta High Court, Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray refused to quash a trial court order that had directed issuance of summons to lawyer Koustav Bagchi, accused of sharing on social media excerpts from a book containing allegations about the private life of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, including claims of a secret marriage. Dismissing the revision plea, the Court held that the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was legally maintainable. It observed that the alleged statements could have a bearing on the Chief Minister’s conduct in her public role, and that such questions must be tested through evidence rather than determined at a preliminary stage.
The matter arose from a revisional application concerning the interpretation and applicability of Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The dispute originated from a book first published in 2015, authored by an individual who wrote about alleged undisclosed aspects of the personal life of the State’s Chief Minister. The book reproduced a letter dated 30 April 2012 addressed to the Chief Minister in her capacity as Chairperson of a political party, seeking information about whether a named individual attended the oath-taking ceremony on 20 May 2011 and whether he was present in the official chamber at Writers’ Buildings. The book remained neither banned nor restricted.
The applicant, an advocate and political figure, uploaded pages of this book containing the letter on social media and was alleged to have made similar statements on television networks. A complaint was thereafter filed by the Public Prosecutor before the City Sessions Court invoking Section 222(2) BNSS, 2023, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 356(2) BNS, 2023, after obtaining statutory sanction. The Sessions Court granted the applicant an opportunity of hearing under Section 223 BNSS, 2023, took cognizance, and issued summons.
The petitioner contended that he only reproduced publicly available material from an unbanned book, that the author himself was not prosecuted, and that any alleged defamatory statements related only to the Chief Minister’s private life and therefore could not fall within the statutory requirement that the Public Prosecutor may act only when the alleged defamation concerns conduct in discharge of public functions. The State argued that the applicant’s actions demonstrated clear intent to malign the Chief Minister, and the Sessions Court had correctly issued summons based on prima facie materials. The State further contended that no provision enabled discharge in summons cases and that the hearing under Section 223 was limited to examining the complaint and accompanying documents.
The record included the book produced by consent before the High Court and kept under sealed cover, where a notice stated that no part of it could be reproduced without permission of the author. The statutory provisions examined included Sections 222 and 223 BNSS, 2023, and Section 356(2) BNS, 2023.
The Court recorded that “although the proposed accused cannot file application for dismissal of the complaint… he can file an application for quashing” and stated that the petition was maintainable. It observed that a complaint under Section 222(2) BNSS may be filed only when the alleged defamatory statement “relates to the conduct of the public functionary in the discharge of his public function.” The Court noted that matters relating to alleged undisclosed marriage or personal details were “matters of Hon’ble Chief Minister’s personal life,” but the author had additionally sought information about the presence of an individual “in the Chief Minister’s Office” and “at the time of her oath taking ceremony,” forming a link with public functions.
The Court stated that neither “public function” nor its “nature nor its degree” is defined, and therefore “each and every second of Hon’ble Chief Minister’s presence in her chamber is for the discharge of her official duties.” It recorded that “any meeting with any person in her office chamber is deemed to have been arranged for official purpose unless the contrary is proved,” placing the burden on the author or the reproducer of the content.
On the issue of reproduction, the Court cited precedents and observed that “republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner like the original author,” noting that “every re-publication… gives rise to a new cause of action.” It further recorded that the book expressly prohibited reproduction without permission and stated that “nobody can reproduce the same without permission from the author,” with no material showing such permission had been obtained.
The Court noted that dismissal at the threshold was impossible “without considering the evidence of the parties.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in K.K. Mishra, it highlighted the importance of the Public Prosecutor applying an independent mind, quoting that the Public Prosecutor “cannot act like a post office on behalf of the State Government” and “is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion.”
The Court stated that initiation of complaint under Section 222(2) BNSS “is allowed subject to fulfilment of certain conditions” and that “without scrutiny of the relevant evidence, it cannot be said at this initial stage that the cognizance… is bad in law.”
The Court stated, “I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which calls for any interference from this Court,” and affirmed the order dated 18 June 2025. The CRR 2817 of 2025 is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs,” and that “CRAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The relevant Book that was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist be returned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. Samrat Mondal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.; Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP
Case Title: Koustav Bagchi v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 2817 of 2025, CRAN 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
