<p>The Supreme Court’s suggestion to decriminalise India’s defamation law adds credence to a demand voiced for a long time. Its observation implies that criminal defamation is unjust and is being used as a tool to intimidate and harass people over extended periods of time. While making the observation, Justice MM Sundresh – leading the bench with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma – also expressed concern over the pendency of defamation cases. </p><p>The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs a news portal, challenging a summons notice issued in connection with a defamation case arising from an article published in 2016. The apex court upheld criminal defamation as constitutional in a 2016 ruling that cited the need for protection of reputation under Article 21. Defamation was a criminal offence under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has retained the provisions under Section 356.</p>.Time to decriminalise defamation: Supreme Court.<p>Criminal defamation is being increasingly used to harass people, especially public personalities such as political leaders, by dragging them to courts and keeping alive the threat of jail alive. The provision has been weaponised to curb free speech – Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been one of the many at the receiving end. The law has also been used to target journalists and media organisations, directly attacking the freedom of expression. Cases are filed from multiple locations and since they involve criminal charges, the accused persons have to make a personal appearance in courts. </p><p>Detention before trial is a possibility and the trial, when it happens, can stretch over a long time. Since truth is not defence in such cases, the accused has to prove that the charge was made in public interest. By design, the provision works against the accused and violates the basic principles of justice and constitutional rights. It is a colonial legacy and is undemocratic. The Supreme Court’s counsel of caution to the lower courts on dealing with such cases has not worked.</p>.<p>There are enough provisions and processes in law that protect the reputation of individuals and organisations, without having to resort to criminal prosecution. Civil procedures that offer relief in the form of damages and other measures provide adequate cover. </p><p>They protect the right to reputation and at the same time, the right to free speech. Many democratic countries have done away with criminal defamation in their laws. The Supreme Court, with its latest observation, has indicated that India is ready for the shift too.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s suggestion to decriminalise India’s defamation law adds credence to a demand voiced for a long time. Its observation implies that criminal defamation is unjust and is being used as a tool to intimidate and harass people over extended periods of time. While making the observation, Justice MM Sundresh – leading the bench with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma – also expressed concern over the pendency of defamation cases. </p><p>The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs a news portal, challenging a summons notice issued in connection with a defamation case arising from an article published in 2016. The apex court upheld criminal defamation as constitutional in a 2016 ruling that cited the need for protection of reputation under Article 21. Defamation was a criminal offence under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has retained the provisions under Section 356.</p>.Time to decriminalise defamation: Supreme Court.<p>Criminal defamation is being increasingly used to harass people, especially public personalities such as political leaders, by dragging them to courts and keeping alive the threat of jail alive. The provision has been weaponised to curb free speech – Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been one of the many at the receiving end. The law has also been used to target journalists and media organisations, directly attacking the freedom of expression. Cases are filed from multiple locations and since they involve criminal charges, the accused persons have to make a personal appearance in courts. </p><p>Detention before trial is a possibility and the trial, when it happens, can stretch over a long time. Since truth is not defence in such cases, the accused has to prove that the charge was made in public interest. By design, the provision works against the accused and violates the basic principles of justice and constitutional rights. It is a colonial legacy and is undemocratic. The Supreme Court’s counsel of caution to the lower courts on dealing with such cases has not worked.</p>.<p>There are enough provisions and processes in law that protect the reputation of individuals and organisations, without having to resort to criminal prosecution. Civil procedures that offer relief in the form of damages and other measures provide adequate cover. </p><p>They protect the right to reputation and at the same time, the right to free speech. Many democratic countries have done away with criminal defamation in their laws. The Supreme Court, with its latest observation, has indicated that India is ready for the shift too.</p>
