Nixing defamation law will cause anarchy: AG

In a high-profile case involving top guns of politics and media who have demanded scrapping of criminal defamation in the Indian Penal Code, the Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court (SC) that granting this prayer will lead to “anarchy” and “chaos” in the country. Defending the need for the pre-Independence defamation law to remain in the IPC under Section 499 and 500, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi told a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant that an aggrieved citizen whose reputation is tarnished can expect to get speedy justice only if there is a criminal recourse. 

Although a victim of defamation can seek damages by filing a civil suit, the Attorney-General (A-G) pointed out that this course of action takes many years and in most cases, the accused may not have enough financial resources to compensate for the damages.Rohatgi asked the court whether freedom of speech and expression can be treated as a permit to say anything about anybody. “If yes, then you will have nothing but anarchy,” Rohatgi added. 

The petitioners supporting the campaign to decriminalise defamation include senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, big media houses, noted journalists and other civil society members.

The petitions submitted that the Victorian law was a British legacy that sought to muzzle free and independent criticism against the Crown. Pointing to the developments around the globe where defamation was decriminalized, the petitioners felt the time was ripe to scrap the old law as it proved to be a handle for public functionaries and those in power to harass and victimize individuals.

The A-G gave several examples such as the live-in relationship of any celebrity couple to drive home the point that the common man has no right to make adverse comments about the private relationship of public figures. “Being in a live-in relationship is not a crime and with changing times it has become a norm accepted by society,” the Bench said.

Rohatgi said that in a criminal defamation proceeding, the onus is on the complainant to give evidence. But the SC felt “disturbed” over the manner in which defamation cases get filed against an individual for an objectionable comment, cartoon, art work or publication. “In how many cases will the accused keep running from one court to otherIJ It is practically impossible as one can’t be convicted by every court,” observed the Bench, citing the cases of actress Khushboo who became a victim of multiple proceedings across the country for making a comment on live-in relationships.