The observation by the Supreme Court that political leaders should not take criticism as a personal insult highlights a particular kind of intolerance that is rarely referred to in the ongoing debate on the subject

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. Criminal defamation laws are especially problematic from the point of view of free expression. 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.

Why to abolish

• State uses it 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? 

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. Criminal defamation should not be allowed to be an instrument in the hands of the state, especially when the Code of Criminal Procedure gives public servants an unfair advantage by allowing the state’s prosecutors to stand in for them when they claim to have been defamed by the media or political opponents.

By: Parveen bansal