Latest News
Back
CRIMINAL DEFAMATION LAW IS AGAINST THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Defamation is an associate panoptic term that covers any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence during which an individual is held; or induces derogative, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual, entity, group, government, etc. Written defamation is termed “libel,” whereas spoken defamation is termed “slander.” Libel and slander, each kind of defamation, derive its origins from English common law, however, they're not treated as distinct from one another in Indian jurisprudence.
What is defamation?
According to section 499 of IPC, whoever, by words either spoken or meant to browse, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation regarding any individual aspiring to hurt, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation can hurt, the name of such person, is said, except within the cases hereunder expected, to slander that person.
Section 499 conjointly cites exceptions. These embrace the “imputation of truth” that is needed for the “public good” and so must be printed, on the general public conduct of presidency officers, the conduct of any individual touching any public question, and deserves of the general public performance.
Section five hundred, that is on penalization for defamation, reads: “Whoever defames another shall be tortured with easy imprisonment for a term which can be 2 years, or with fine, or with each.”
In India, defamation is each civil and criminal offenses. The remedy for a civil defamation is roofed beneath the Law of Torts. in an exceedingly civil defamation case, an individual WHO is defamed will move either judicature or subordinate courts and look for damages within the style of financial compensation from the defendant. Also, beneath sections 499 and five hundred of the IPC, an individual guilty of criminal defamation is sent to jail for 2 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the country’s colonial-era criminal defamation laws, ruling that they're not in conflict with the proper to free speech. The judgment can place politicians and media figures, several whom square measure already facing charges of criminal defamation, on the defensive. Some expressed concern that it may muzzle freedom of speech. Explaining the interaction of defamation and free speech rights, the apex court terminated there'll be a “no chilling" impact on the latter attributable to criminal sanctions. Dissent is needed, however, it doesn't grant Associate in Nursing unshackled right to wreck a name, aforementioned a bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant.
The ruling was delivered on a petition filed initially by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politician Subramanian Swamy against provisions criminalizing defamation. Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi and metropolis chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, among others, later became parties to the case. They currently have to be compelled to face criminal defamation proceedings initiated against them.
The apex court had earlier stayed the summons issued to individuals facing criminal defamation cases in numerous lower courts. The Supreme Court last year affected down a sweeping law that allowed police to jail individuals for on-line posts thought to be offensive. The court found section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to be unconstitutional, in an exceedingly ruling praised by free speech defenders.
