Defamation, at its core, is the act of making a false statement that harms an individual’s or entity’s reputation.
A heated political clash in Bihar has escalated into a legal showdown, with Rural Works Minister Ashok Choudhary serving a Rs 100 crore defamation notice on Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor. The notice, issued in response to Kishor’s allegations of property irregularities involving Choudhary’s family, marks a significant escalation in their ongoing feud. This high-profile dispute not only underscores the contentious nature of Bihar’s political landscape but also highlights the serious legal implications of defamation in India.
The legal notice demands an unconditional written and public apology from Kishor within seven days, with Choudhary threatening both criminal proceedings and a civil suit for damages if the demand is not met. The minister has categorically dismissed Kishor’s claims as baseless and politically motivated, asserting that they have caused significant harm to his and his family’s reputation.
The Allegations and Counterclaims
The controversy erupted on September 19, 2025, when Prashant Kishor, a former political strategist turned politician, held a press conference in Patna. He alleged that Ashok Choudhary purchased 23 katthas of land in Bikram, Patna, in 2021 through his personal assistant, Yogendra Dutt, and later transferred it to his daughter, Shambhavi Choudhary, the Samastipur MP. Kishor further claimed that the land, valued at Rs 200 crore, was acquired through the Manas Vaibhav Vikas Trust and involved suspicious financial transactions between Choudhary’s wife, Nita Keskar Choudhary, and his sister-in-law, Anita Kunal, wife of the late retired IPS officer Acharya Kishor Kunal.
In response, Choudhary issued a strongly worded statement, calling the allegations “false and baseless” and accusing Kishor of engaging in “despicable politics” that targeted his family. He clarified that the property in question was legally purchased by his daughter, Shambhavi Choudhary, on February 21, 2021, using her own income and resources. Choudhary emphasized that the details of the purchase were transparently disclosed in Shambhavi’s election affidavit, refuting any claims of benami (proxy) transactions. He also denied any connection to the Manas Vaibhav Vikas Trust mentioned by Kishor and accused the Jan Suraaj leader of spreading misleading information to gain political mileage.
Choudhary further revealed that he had already filed a defamation case against Kishor earlier in 2025. Following that complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Patna issued a summons to Kishor, requiring him to appear in court on October 17, 2025, in connection with Complaint Case No. 6989/2025. According to the minister, Kishor’s recent allegations were made in response to receiving this court notice, suggesting they were a retaliatory tactic.
Understanding Defamation in India
Defamation, at its core, is the act of making a false statement that harms an individual’s or entity’s reputation. In India, defamation is addressed under both civil and criminal law, making it a potent legal tool in disputes like the one between Choudhary and Kishor. The legal framework for defamation is primarily governed by Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which define defamation and prescribe penalties, respectively.
Under Section 499, defamation occurs when a person makes or publishes any imputation concerning another person, intending to harm their reputation or knowing that it is likely to do so. This can include spoken words (slander) or written/published statements (libel). Kishor’s press conference allegations, disseminated to the media and public, fall under the category of libel, as they were made publicly and in a manner likely to damage Choudhary’s reputation.
To succeed in a defamation case, the plaintiff (Choudhary, in this instance) must prove four elements:
- A false statement: The claim must be demonstrably untrue, presented as fact rather than opinion.
- Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party, such as through a press conference or media report.
- Harm: The statement must cause reputational damage, which may include loss of public trust, professional standing, or personal distress.
- Fault: The defendant must have acted with negligence, reckless disregard for the truth, or actual malice (knowing the statement was false).
Section 500 of the IPC prescribes a punishment of up to two years of simple imprisonment, a fine, or both for criminal defamation. Additionally, under civil law, victims can seek monetary damages for reputational harm, emotional distress, or financial losses. Choudhary’s Rs 100 crore claim is a civil action seeking exemplary damages, intended to compensate for the alleged harm and deter future false statements.
FAQs on Types of Defamation
1. What are the two main types of defamation?
Defamation is divided into two types: libel and slander. Libel refers to defamatory statements made in written or published form, such as in newspapers, social media posts, or articles. Slander involves spoken defamatory statements, like those made in speeches or press conferences. Both can harm a person’s reputation and lead to legal consequences.
2. How does criminal defamation differ from civil defamation in India?
In India, criminal defamation (under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) involves false statements that harm someone’s reputation, punishable by up to two years in prison, a fine, or both. Civil defamation is a tort where the victim seeks monetary damages for reputational harm without criminal penalties. Both address false statements but differ in outcomes, jail versus compensation.
3. What is the difference between defamation and defamation per se?
Defamation requires proof of a false statement, publication, harm, and fault. Defamation per se applies to statements so harmful (e.g., accusing someone of a crime or moral turpitude) that damage to reputation is presumed, and the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove actual harm. In India, courts may still require evidence of intent or malice for such cases.