SC upholds law on criminal defamation

• The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws as provided under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Supreme court observed that " A person’s right to freedom of speech has to be balanced with the other person’s right to reputation and therefore the two Sections are necessary.”

About Criminal Defamation:

• Criminal defamation is defined both as a civil wrong and a criminal offence. In other words, a person can either be sued for compensation by the affected person or be criminally prosecuted by the state.
• In India criminal defamation is defined and explained in section 499 and section 500.
• Section 499 states defamation could be through words – spoken or intended to be read, through signs, and also through visible representations. These can either be published or spoken about a person with the intention of damaging reputation of that person, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm his reputation.
• Section 500 stipulates an imprisonment of up to two years, with or without fine, for someone held guilty of criminal defamation. However, criminal defamation is a compoundable offence and parties can seek a closure of the case by reaching a compromise.
• International bodies such as the UN and the OSCE(Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) have recognized the threat posed by criminal defamation laws and have recommended that they should be abolished.

Analysis:

• State uses criminal defamation as a means to coerce the media and political opponents into adopting self-censorship and unwarranted self-restraint.
• Groups or sections claiming to have been hurt or insulted, abuse the process by initiating multiple proceedings in different places; and, more importantly, the protracted process itself is a punishment.
• Magistrates tend to mechanically summon defendants without first assessing whether the allegedly offending content comes within one of the many exceptions to defamation found in the statute.
• Even truth is not a defense in this case. Even if a person has spoken the truth, he can be prosecuted for defamation. Under the first exception to section 499, truth will only be a defense if the statement was made for the public good, which is a question of fact to be assessed by the court.
• Section 499 states that an imputation expressed ironically may amount to defamation. This provision is also excessive and arbitrary as who is to decide what is ironical?
• Therefore, democratic opinion in many countries is veering around to the view that defamation should be treated as a civil wrong and should not be pursued as a criminal case .
• Sections 499-500 of the IPC are vestiges from India’s colonial past that are not appropriate for a modern democracy.
• However on the other side , Right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to imposition of reasonable restriction. there is a correlative duty not to interfere with the liberty of others. Each is entitled to dignity of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others’ right to person or reputation.
• Reputation of an individual is a basic element of Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

By: Vishal