Why would someone take objection to a metaphor, says SC staying defamation case against Shashi Tharoor over Modi remark

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over a “scorpion sitting on a Shivling” comment that he had made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition, which is returnable within four weeks, and has stayed the proceedings.

According to a report by PTI, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan was hearing the matter. The Congress MP had moved the SC against the Delhi High Court's order issued on August 29, 2024, rejecting Tharoor's plea to quash the defamation case.

The Delhi HC had held that Thiruvananthapuram MP Shashi Tharoor's “scorpion on Shivling" remark in 2018 defamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other members of the BJP Party.

A person named Rajeev Babbar filed a criminal complaint against Shashi Tharoor on November 2, 2018. He had claimed that the Congress MP's statement hurt his religious sentiments. He had further described Tharoor's statement as “intolerable abuse” and “absolute vilification” of the faiths of several people, according to LiveLaw. 

‘Scorpion sitting on Shivling’

In October 2018, at the Bangalore Literature Festival, Shashi Tharoor referred to an unknown Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader, comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.” 

The Congress leader had termed it as an “extraordinarily striking metaphor.”

Advocate Mohammed Ali Khan, who represented Shashi Tharoor, said that his client had merely quoted from an article published in the Caravan Magazine in 2012, which contained the remark reported Live Law.

Khan further observed that if the same remark had not been defamatory in 2012, how could it become so in 2018?

Responding to Khan, Justice Roy stated that the ‘scorpion’ remark could also point out the invincibility of the person. He further added that a metaphor could be interpreted in a number of ways.

“I don't know why somebody has taken objection to this,” said Justice Roy, reported Live Law.