The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment dated April 17, 2025, upheld the right of consumers to protest peacefully without facing criminal prosecution. The court quashed a defamation complaint filed by M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. against a group of homebuyers who had displayed a banner highlighting construction-related grievances.
The apex court, in Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., ruled that peaceful and non-abusive protests by consumers expressing dissatisfaction with services fall within the ambit of free speech and are protected by the Constitution of India.
“A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech,”
— Supreme Court Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh
Read Alos:- SC Quashes Delhi HC's Broad Injunction Against Alleged Defamatory Wikipedia Content About ANI
The conflict arose when a group of flat owners protested against the developer by erecting a banner in English and Hindi outside the building. The banner listed several issues such as poor lift maintenance, leakage, broken podium, and failure to form a housing society even after 18 months. The banner was titled:
"WE PROTEST AGAINST THE BUILDER A SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FOR"
It was followed by a list of grievances like:
- Not forming the society after 18 months
- Not cooperating with residents
- Poor garden and plumbing
- Ignoring complaints
- Water issues
- Poor lift and road conditions
The developer responded by filing a criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging defamation. The complaint accused the homebuyers of damaging the builder’s reputation and launching a false propaganda campaign.
Read Also:- SC Bench Divided on Disciplinary Action Against AoR and Advocate Over Misconduct in Petition Filing
When the Magistrate issued summons, the homebuyers challenged the proceedings through a revision petition and later a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
The bench carefully examined whether the banner’s contents amounted to defamation under Section 499 IPC or were protected by the Ninth Exception — which permits imputation made in good faith for protecting personal or public interest.
“There is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent… In mild and temperate language, certain issues which the appellants perceived as their grievances have been aired.”
— Supreme Court
The Court noted that the language used in the protest was neither abusive nor offensive. The homebuyers merely pointed out deficiencies and contractual lapses such as pending formation of the housing society, non-resolution of water and plumbing issues, and maintenance problems.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Slams DPS Dwarka for Discrimination Against Students Over Fee Dispute
The Court also recognized the builder-buyer relationship as a commercial one where disputes and dissatisfaction are natural. It held that legitimate expressions of concern arising out of such a relationship, voiced peacefully, do not attract criminal defamation.
“The careful choice of words, the conscious avoidance of intemperate, rude or abusive language and the peaceful manner of protest… point to the fact that to protect their legitimate interests and the interest of the other homeowners… the erection of the banner was done in good faith.”
— Supreme Court
The court emphasized that truth is not a requirement under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC. The key element is good faith. If the statement is made to protect one’s interest or public good, it does not amount to defamation.
The Court also cited earlier judgments including Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, noting that even at the stage of issuing process, a Magistrate can consider whether exceptions to Section 499 apply.
The judgment draws a direct connection between the right to peaceful protest and Articles 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association.
“The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21.”
— Supreme Court quoting from Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra
The bench warned that allowing such criminal proceedings to continue would have a chilling effect on free speech and create a dangerous precedent where consumers are criminalized for raising genuine concerns.
Setting aside the Bombay High Court’s order and quashing the complaint, the Supreme Court observed:
“The appellants could not have said anything less in the banner… They believed that this was their rightful and legitimate interest to highlight their grievances, which they contend were ignored earlier.”
“Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499. Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution of India.”
The court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the homebuyers constituted an abuse of legal process and should be dismissed.
Case Title: Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sureshan P., AOR Mr. Ajay Panicker, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Lavnya Panicker, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Syed Kamran Ali, Adv. Mr. Arjun Varma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sagar, Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
