Supreme Court docket: Homebuyers have proper to boost grievances

A bench headed by justice KV Viswanathan stated that simply as builders have a proper of business speech to promote their flats, the homebuyers have a constitutional proper to vent their grievances via peaceable protest, particularly when their actions are throughout the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ and so they have cautiously prevented transgressing into the offending zone.

The highest courtroom ruling got here as a reprieve to seven homebuyers of a housing society in Mumbai’s Borivali who had been dragged to courtroom by A Surti Builders for placing up banners in opposition to the corporate exterior the housing complicated that made public conscious in regards to the deficiencies within the challenge comprising 128 flats.

The banners got here up in August 2015, roughly 18 months after the residents obtained possession of their flats. They protested over the developer’s angle in not forming the society, not giving society accounts, not co-operating with some residents, not attending to builders’ defects, not sorting water, elevate and plumbing points, other than shabby backyard, damaged podium, and faulty method roads.

The defamation case in opposition to the residents was initiated in 2016 in opposition to which the Bombay excessive courtroom in June 2024 refused to grant them reduction and ordered them to face trial.

The highest courtroom bench, additionally comprising justice N Kotiswar Singh, stated, “Their case wholly falls throughout the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Part 499,” which protects any assertion made in good religion. “Their peaceable protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Structure of India (coping with proper to free speech and expression). The felony proceedings levelled in opposition to them, if allowed to proceed, will likely be a transparent abuse of course of.”

Justice Viswanathan, writing the judgment for the bench stated, “Homebuyers and builders haven’t at all times been the most effective of buddies. Situations are innumerable the place the 2 have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such occasion. Not glad with the companies offered by the respondent-developer and when, in response to them, repeated entreaties didn’t elicit a response, the appellant-home patrons determined to resort to a singular type of protest.”

On scrutiny of the language employed by the residents of their banners, the bench stated, “Language is the car via which ideas are conveyed. Had the appellants exceeded their privilege in erecting the banner? We don’t assume so.”

The courtroom put aside the HC order and quashed the felony defamation proceedings and stated, “A proper to protest peacefully with out falling foul of the legislation is a corresponding proper, which the shoppers must possess simply as the vendor enjoys his proper to industrial speech. Any try to painting them as felony offences, when the required substances usually are not made out, can be a transparent abuse of course of and needs to be nipped within the bud.”

Stating that in any given case, language used will matter for attracting substances of defamation, within the current case, the bench was satisfied that the “cautious selection of the phrases, the aware avoidance of intemperate, impolite or abusive language and the peaceable method of protest” identified that the residents acted in good religion with none malice.

“The style of the protest resorted to by the appellants was peaceable and orderly and with out in any method utilizing offensive or abusive language. It couldn’t be stated that the appellants crossed the Lakshman Rekha and transgressed into the offending zone,” the judgment concluded.