<p>The verdict of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code which make defamation a criminal offence is unfortunate and will have adverse consequences on the exercise of the basic right of freedom of expression. The two IPC sections are, like many other laws and provisions, not in tune with the spirit of the times and have been made redundant by the advances in communications. They prescribe criminal prosecution of defamation cases and prescribe a two-year prison term for offenders. There is no need for criminal prosecution when civil prosecution is also provided for. In civil prosecution, those found guilty of defamation would only have to pay damages. The government’s argument in the court was that many people would not be able to pay the damages and so criminal prosecution is required. The government also said that protecting the reputation of individuals is its responsibility.<br />The two provisions have been used more to stifle criticism of officials and people in public life than to protect reputations, which is its claimed purpose. The court unfortunately made a wrong balance between freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to reputation which it said was part of the right to life under Article 21. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute, as the court observed. But its denial is worse than violation of the right to reputation, though basic rights do not always lend themselves to comparison. There is also a remedy available to defamed persons through civil procedures. To insist that criminal prosecution is essential to protect reputations is to actually threaten critics and dissenters with jail. Criminal defamation cases are usually filed to harass and intimidate critics. Socially committed persons, human rights activists and media often become victims. Cases are filed in different parts of the country only to harass the critics. The potential for mischief and harassment can be imagined from the fact that even truth is not a defence for a person who becomes a target of a criminal defamation case.<br />Most democratic countries have dropped criminal provisions from their defamation laws. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will review its decision in the coming days. The court has in the past underlined the importance of free speech many times through its judgments. This judgment goes against that tradition. Parliament can also consider legislation which will decriminalise defamation. A political consensus can be evolved on it, as leaders of three parties were among those who had challenged the provisions in the court. <br /><br /></p>
<p>The verdict of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code which make defamation a criminal offence is unfortunate and will have adverse consequences on the exercise of the basic right of freedom of expression. The two IPC sections are, like many other laws and provisions, not in tune with the spirit of the times and have been made redundant by the advances in communications. They prescribe criminal prosecution of defamation cases and prescribe a two-year prison term for offenders. There is no need for criminal prosecution when civil prosecution is also provided for. In civil prosecution, those found guilty of defamation would only have to pay damages. The government’s argument in the court was that many people would not be able to pay the damages and so criminal prosecution is required. The government also said that protecting the reputation of individuals is its responsibility.<br />The two provisions have been used more to stifle criticism of officials and people in public life than to protect reputations, which is its claimed purpose. The court unfortunately made a wrong balance between freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to reputation which it said was part of the right to life under Article 21. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute, as the court observed. But its denial is worse than violation of the right to reputation, though basic rights do not always lend themselves to comparison. There is also a remedy available to defamed persons through civil procedures. To insist that criminal prosecution is essential to protect reputations is to actually threaten critics and dissenters with jail. Criminal defamation cases are usually filed to harass and intimidate critics. Socially committed persons, human rights activists and media often become victims. Cases are filed in different parts of the country only to harass the critics. The potential for mischief and harassment can be imagined from the fact that even truth is not a defence for a person who becomes a target of a criminal defamation case.<br />Most democratic countries have dropped criminal provisions from their defamation laws. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will review its decision in the coming days. The court has in the past underlined the importance of free speech many times through its judgments. This judgment goes against that tradition. Parliament can also consider legislation which will decriminalise defamation. A political consensus can be evolved on it, as leaders of three parties were among those who had challenged the provisions in the court. <br /><br /></p>
