Hope apex court’s apt message is absorbed
At a time when defamatory statements have become common and aggrieved persons are compelled to knock the doors of the courts for justice, it would have been unfortunate to deprive victims, recourse to criminal proceedings against the accused. Thankfully, the Supreme Court on Friday settled the matter by upholding the penal provisions on defamation, paving the way for criminal trials to continue against defamation. It may be argued that since the aggrieved persons can resort to civil defamation suits, penal laws on the issue are unwanted. Moreover, they can be misused by people to settle political scores with their rivals. The fate of civil proceedings is well known; such matters can go on for years and decades without a resolution. Besides, even if they are settled in the life-time of the parties concerned, the verdict can hardly be a deterrent. On the other hand, criminal laws provide for strong punishment to those who indulge in character assassination. There cannot be one person in public life that has not faced some kind of slander or the other. Some of these remarks can be overlooked, others responded to. But a number of the statements are damaging in nature and deserve a legal remedy that sends out a strong message to the guilty — and the penal provisions in the defamation law serves this purpose. As for the fear of misuse, we must leave it to the wisdom of the courts to recognise such mischievous or devious attempts and deal with them appropriately. One observation by the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while settling a clutch of petitions by politicians of various affiliations (Subramanian Swamy, Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi) who challenged the validity of criminal offence in defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, is noteworthy. It said that the “reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of free speech”. This should set to rest the oft-invoked right to free speech to get away with all sorts of malignant statements against others. It is this issue which the petitioners had raised before the Bench, claiming that Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC violated their right to free speech which they had under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, as the court correctly observed, there is also the right to live with dignity, which Article 21 provides. Defamatory statements adversely impact the affected person's right to live with dignity. As the Union Government's counsel said, the right to free speech cannot be used with “reckless disregard” for someone’s reputation.
It is possible that the last word on the issue has not been heard, and the matter of criminal defamation may be brought before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, with a view to impress upon the judiciary the absoluteness of Article 19. For now, though, the message is clear: Those in responsible positions must refrain from hurling baseless allegations against people or institutions — allegations that have the potential to severely harm reputations. Certain politicians have made it a hobby to accuse adversaries without supporting their charges with even a shred of evidence. One hopes the Supreme Court's ruling helps them see reason and act more responsibly.