Mentor’s Comment

The debate around criminal defamation in India has resurfaced with the Supreme Court itself acknowledging the growing misuse of the law. What began as a safeguard for reputation has increasingly turned into a tool of intimidation, propaganda, and political retribution. This article examines why criminal defamation is incompatible with democratic debate, the disproportionate nature of its penalties, and how its misuse has shaped India’s political and media landscape. We will also provide value additions, practice questions, and related UPSC linkages.

Introduction

In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation in the Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India case, equating reputation with the right to life. However, recent developments show that this reasoning has produced more problems than it has solved. On September 22, Justice M.M. Sundresh expressed concern over the growing use of criminal defamation by political actors and private individuals as a shield against criticism and as a weapon of retribution. With imprisonment prescribed as a penalty, the law now threatens democratic debate, fosters self-censorship, and risks turning the judiciary into a tool for silencing dissent.

Criminal Defamation in the News

The issue has returned to the spotlight because of rising judicial unease over its misuse. Justice M.M. Sundresh’s recent remarks highlight how criminal defamation cases are no longer rare or exceptional but routine weapons used by politicians, business interests, and individuals to stifle criticism. From Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor to journalists and opposition leaders, many face disproportionate litigation that results in prolonged trials, loss of political time, and harassment. This represents not just isolated misuse but a systemic problem that undermines free speech and democratic accountability.

Defamation (criminal) — statutory text & essentials

1. Statutory definition: Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation as making or publishing an imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, that person’s reputation.
2. Punishment: Section 500 prescribes simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
3. Exceptions: Section 499 contains ten exceptions (e.g., truth for public good, fair comment on public conduct, parliamentary proceedings, etc.) — these are crucial in practice and often determinative in defamation disputes.

• Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

  • Section 354(2) – punishment up to 2 years simple imprisonment, or fine, or both, or community service.
  • Section 356 – covers words, signs, or visible representations harming reputation.
• Scope: Applies to individuals, companies, and deceased persons if family reputation is harmed.
• Essential Elements: False statement, harm to reputation, communication to third party, and intent/knowledge of likely harm.
• Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable and bailable – requires a warrant for arrest; bail available.
• Digital Extension: Covers defamatory posts on social media, websites, and messaging platforms.
• Defences/Exceptions: Truth in public interest, fair comment on public servants, judicial proceedings, public performances, and cautionary statements made in good faith.

Supreme Court timeline (select landmark decisions on defamation) 

1. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): refined the reasonable-restriction test under Article 19(2); held that state action to restrain expression must demonstrate proximate danger (not remote/conjectural). Important when courts assess whether alleged speech is dangerously likely to cause harm.
2. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto-Shankar case) (1994): balanced freedom of press with right to privacy; held privacy has constitutional status but public interest/public record may limit privacy claims. Relevant to defamation where publication concerns public servants/official acts.
3. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016): Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of Sections 499 and 500, treating reputation as part of human dignity under Article 21 and holding criminal defamation a reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a). This remains the leading authority sustaining criminal defamation in India

Why is criminal defamation disproportionate?

1. Imprisonment for speech: Criminal defamation proposes jail time for reputational injury, which is disproportionate compared to civil remedies like damages or injunctions.
2. Nature of harm: Unlike physical injury, reputational harm can be addressed through compensation and retractions, not imprisonment.
3. Global comparison: Many countries such as the U.K. have abolished criminal defamation laws as incompatible with democratic debate.

How has the law been misused in politics and media?

1. Weaponisation of complaints: Political actors distort or take statements out of context, using the threat of jail to suppress opponents. Examples:
   • Editors of The Hindu faced cases under Jayalalithaa’s government.
   • Rahul Gandhi faced criminal defamation for remarks against political leaders.
   • Nitin Gadkari and Arun Jaitley’s cases against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP tied up governance in litigation.
2. Judicial burden: Lower courts often issue summons without assessing whether the speech crosses the threshold of defamation.

What is the impact on journalism and public debate?

1. Intimidation of journalists: Local reporters face harassment from politicians and business groups, including threats of arrest and travel to distant courts.
2. Self-censorship: The chilling effect forces media houses and individuals to avoid criticism of powerful actors.
3. Distortion of democratic debate: Criminal defamation converts political disagreements into legal battles, weakening accountability and transparency.

Are civil remedies a better alternative?

1. Civil courts as recourse: Aggrieved individuals can seek damages, injunctions, or retractions through civil suits.
2. Balanced protection: Civil remedies protect reputation without curbing free expression.
3. Reduced misuse: Without the threat of imprisonment, civil proceedings reduce the scope of intimidation.

Comparative perspective and lessons for India

1. U.K. model: Abolished criminal defamation, relying instead on civil law to handle reputational disputes.
2. Global democratic practice: Democracies increasingly view criminal defamation as incompatible with free speech.
3. India’s opportunity: Reforms are needed to align India’s legal framework with global standards and democratic values.

Conclusion

Criminal defamation in India has shifted from being a safeguard for dignity to a political weapon that curtails free expression and democratic accountability. Justice Sundresh’s remarks signal a broader judicial recognition that the law’s misuse has become systemic. Moving toward civil remedies while abolishing criminal defamation is necessary for strengthening free speech, protecting journalists, and ensuring political debates remain democratic rather than litigative. India must now act to strike the right balance between dignity and liberty.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now