Film-Maker Ram Gopal Varma In Legal Trouble Due To His Tweet Against Presidential Candidate Draupadi Murmu

Film-maker Ram Gopal Varma found himself in legal crosshairs after a criminal complaint was filed against him by Subhash B. Rajora, Advocate, on 14th July before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate in Maharashtra for allegedly publishing defamatory and derogatory tweets about politician Draupadi Murmu in respect of her nomination as the Presidential candidate of the NDA.

Rajora accused the Movie Director of offences under Sections 499 (Defamation), 504 (Intentional Insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code as well as the provisions of the Information and Technology Act. 

"Ram Gopal Varma has deliberately made derogatory comments against [Draupadi Murmu] which on the face itself is offensive, obnoxious and smacks of the underlying malice and mischief intended tarnished image of and reputation of proposed candidate Draupadi Murmu cause embarrassment and hurts me”, the Complainant stated.

On June 22, Ram Gopal Varma tweeted "If Drapaudi is the President who are the Pandavas? And more importantly, who are the Kauravas?"

He subsequently tweeted, "This was said just in an earnest irony and not intended in any other way...Draupadi in Mahabharata is my favourite character but since the name is such a rarity I just remembered the associated characters and hence my expression. Not at all intended to hurt sentiments of anyone.”

Senior Advocate Vivek Sood, while speaking to BW Legal World said, “The tweet by Ram Gopal Varma is derogatory, in my view. It is defamatory in nature. It cannot be categorised as humour and hence part of free speech.”

“Having said this, I must add that tweets are like a million chattering birds, therefore, such tweets deserve condemnation but not legal action. Can you prosecute a million people for tweeting hurtful things?” quipped Sood.

Whether a criminal complaint for defamation would be maintainable or not, considering it has not been filed by the person directly aggrieved by the tweets, is another vexed question of law about which diverse judicial opinions exist. Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains an embargo that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. 

The expression “some person aggrieved” would obviously include third parties but it cannot be construed in a vague or absurd manner as Section 198 of Cr.P.C. which specifies prosecution for offences against marriage employing the very same expression “some person aggrieved” includes only proximate relatives like father, mother or brother of the distant relative. 

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, it was held that whether the complainant is a person aggrieved has to be determined in each case according to the fact and situation.

The Advocate had filed a complaint at the Nirmal Nagar Police Station on June 25 and thereafter with the State Commission for Women on June 29. He urged the registration of an FIR under appropriate sections of the IPC read with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The matter will now come up for hearing on October 11, 2022.