The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim stay on defamation proceedings against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in relation to his controversial “scorpion on Shivling” remark targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018. The case, filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, accuses Tharoor of hurting religious sentiments with the metaphor.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti directed that the interim stay on the trial court proceedings continue, while granting four weeks’ time to the Delhi Police and Babbar to file their responses to Tharoor’s plea challenging the defamation charges. The bench stated, “The interim order (of stay on the defamation proceedings) to continue.”
The Delhi Police’s counsel argued that the key issue in the case was whether the complainant, Babbar, could be considered an aggrieved party in the context of the alleged defamation. Babbar claims Tharoor’s remarks insulted both the Prime Minister and his religious beliefs.
The defamation case traces back to a public statement Tharoor made in October 2018, where he cited an unnamed RSS leader who compared Modi to “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.” Tharoor described it as an “extraordinarily striking metaphor,” which prompted Babbar to file the criminal defamation complaint.
Tharoor sought to have the trial court’s April 27, 2019, order summoning him as an accused overturned. The Congress leader approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court, on August 29, 2023, refused to quash the defamation proceedings. The High Court had noted that the “scorpion on Shivling” metaphor was “despicable and deplorable,” asserting that the remarks defamed not only the Prime Minister but also members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In an earlier ruling on September 10, the Supreme Court had issued an interim stay on the trial court proceedings, allowing Tharoor time to appeal. The apex court has now sought responses from both Babbar and the Delhi Police before proceeding with the case, with the next hearing scheduled for four weeks later.
The case continues to draw attention due to its political implications, with Tharoor’s defense highlighting freedom of speech, while Babbar’s complaint emphasizes the offensive nature of the metaphor.
