<p> Even truth may not be the sole defence in making defamatory statements and such assertions could be saved only when made in public good, the Supreme Court said.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Meanwhile, the apex court upheld the Constitutional validity of the penal provision on defamation.<br /><br />A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a batch of petitions including the ones by Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, BJP MP Subramanian Swamy and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal contending the penal provision had chilling effect on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. <br /><br />“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Cumulatively it serves the social interest,” the bench said.<br /><br />The arguments were made that “public good” as mentioned in the exception of Section 499 (defamation) of the IPC are quite vague as they do not provide any objective standard or norm or guidance. As a consequence, the provisions do not meet the test of reasonable restriction provided on the freedom of speech.<br /><br />The court, however, said there can be occasions or situations where truth may not be the sole defence and that is why the provision has given emphasis on public good. However, the public good is a question of fact, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, it added. The court also refused to examine a plea made by Foundation of Media Professionals that in all the proceedings under Section 499 of the IPC against a newspaper, the accused must be confined to those who are identifiable to be responsible for the charged offence.<br /><br />“In our considered opinion that the said aspects can be highlighted by an aggrieved person either in a challenge for quashing of the complaint or during the trial,” the bench added. <br /><br /></p>
<p> Even truth may not be the sole defence in making defamatory statements and such assertions could be saved only when made in public good, the Supreme Court said.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Meanwhile, the apex court upheld the Constitutional validity of the penal provision on defamation.<br /><br />A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a batch of petitions including the ones by Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, BJP MP Subramanian Swamy and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal contending the penal provision had chilling effect on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. <br /><br />“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Cumulatively it serves the social interest,” the bench said.<br /><br />The arguments were made that “public good” as mentioned in the exception of Section 499 (defamation) of the IPC are quite vague as they do not provide any objective standard or norm or guidance. As a consequence, the provisions do not meet the test of reasonable restriction provided on the freedom of speech.<br /><br />The court, however, said there can be occasions or situations where truth may not be the sole defence and that is why the provision has given emphasis on public good. However, the public good is a question of fact, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, it added. The court also refused to examine a plea made by Foundation of Media Professionals that in all the proceedings under Section 499 of the IPC against a newspaper, the accused must be confined to those who are identifiable to be responsible for the charged offence.<br /><br />“In our considered opinion that the said aspects can be highlighted by an aggrieved person either in a challenge for quashing of the complaint or during the trial,” the bench added. <br /><br /></p>
