Defamation in India - UPSC Polity Notes | Testbook.com

Updates related to Defamation in India

The idea of fame, reputation, and public recognition form a fundamental part of our rights as per the Constitution of India , particularly under article 21. Recently, instances of allegations translating into defamation cases have been making headlines. For instance, earlier this year, the Delhi High Court acquitted a journalist in a criminal defamation case filed by her former employer regarding a publication about her experiences of workplace violence.

The court dismissed the defamation suit, drawing a clear line between defamation and the expression of genuine grief and personal experiences of abuse. The court declared that women cannot be penalized for speaking out against sexual abuse under the guise of defamation complaints. In another recent case, a defamation suit filed by a family member of a government official against a serving minister has sparked public interest in understanding the nuances of defamation.

Understanding Defamation as per Indian Laws

• Defamation is a broad term that includes any malicious, reputation-damaging statement, publication, or action against a person, group, or entity.
• 'Libel' and 'Slander' are two types of defamation . Libel refers to written defamation, while Slander pertains to the spoken form. Despite their origins in English Common Law, these terms are not distinguished in the Indian legal context.
• According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , which handles the procedural aspects of the law, defamation offences are considered non-cognizable and bailable.

Characteristics that Define Defamation

• The statement or action must be inherently defamatory.
• The statement or action must specifically refer to the person filing the complaint.
• The statement must have been published or communicated to at least one individual other than the one affected.

The Law on Defamation in India

• In terms of Fundamental Rights , the Indian constitution grants citizens various freedoms under article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions.
• Contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence are not covered under the right to freedom.
• Importantly, the freedom of expression should not undermine another individual's right to a dignified life, which includes their reputation and recognition.

The Dual Nature of Defamation

• Defamation is a civil and criminal offence by nature.
• In civil law, defamation is punishable under the Law of Torts , where the punishment is usually in the form of damages awarded to the aggrieved party.
• In criminal law, defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable offence , and it can be compounded.

Civil Defamation

• The statement or allegation must be false and made without the affected person's consent.
• The person affected by the defamation can claim monetary compensation from the defendant.
• The allegations or statements made must have a substantial and defamatory nature.
• The defamatory content must be intended to damage the affected party's reputation, causing hatred, contempt or ridicule towards them.
• The nature of the defamation is determined by the common citizen's perspective and understanding of the matter.

Criminal Defamation

• In criminal defamation cases, imprisonment can be awarded as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 500.
• For a suit to be considered criminal, the intention of the allegation must be criminal, i.e., with the intent to defame.
• It must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the action was intended to harm the reputation of the affected party.

Instances that are not considered Defamation

• Truthful imputations made or published for the public good are not considered defamation. The application of public good, however, can be subject to debate.
• Expressing an opinion in good faith about the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions is not defamation.
• Expressing an opinion on the conduct of a person concerning a public question is not defamation.
• Publishing a true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or the result of such proceedings, is not considered defamation.
• Expressing an opinion in good faith about the merits of any case decided by a court, the parties involved, or their character, is not defamation.
• Expressing an opinion in good faith about a public performance with the author's concurrence is not defamation.
• Censure made in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another is not defamation.
• Accusations made in good faith by a person to another having lawful authority on the subject is not considered defamation.
• Statements or allegations made in good faith by a person in protection of his or another person's interest or the larger public good is not defamation.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgements on Defamation in India

The Case of Subramanian Swamy Versus Union Of India

• In this case, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of freedom of expression, describing it as a “highly treasured value under the Constitution.”
• The court also highlighted the concept of reasonable restrictions, stating that “Notwithstanding the expansive and sweeping ambit of freedom of speech, as all rights, the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions.”
• The court emphasized that an individual's reputation is an integral part of their right to life as granted under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It stated that “Reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech.”
• The court distinguished between defamatory attacks and criticism, advocating for tolerance towards criticism and dissent but no tolerance towards defamatory attacks.

The Case of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India

• This case is considered a landmark in pushing back against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.
• The Supreme court declared Section 66A of the IT ACT-2000(Amended in 2008) unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”
• Article 19(1) (a) gives people the right to speech and expression, whereas 19(2) gives the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
• The court stated that “Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it …and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”
• The court also read down Section 79, which deals with “intermediary liability” and outlines the rules for engagement between governments and commercial internet platforms.
• Section 79 states that an intermediary shall not be legally or otherwise liable for third-party information, data, or communication posted or hosted on its platform.

You may also find it helpful to read: 25 Important Supreme Court Judgements for UPSC

Wrapping Up

Defamation poses a direct threat to an individual's reputation, public image, and the respect they've earned throughout their life. As such, it is treated as a serious offence under the law. The courts have done an admirable job of balancing the freedom of speech and expression with the right to a dignified life, both of which are fundamental rights.

The wisdom of the lawmakers is reflected in the way they've treated slander and libel equally, effectively preventing the misuse of weaker provisions. The test of criminality in a statement for criminal defamation is a deterrent against such practices. It is the collective wisdom and brilliance of our institutions that uphold these principles, guaranteeing rights, and ensuring continuity, progress, and righteousness through justice.

Defamation in India [UPSC Notes]:- Download PDF Here

This article is relevant for the sections of Polity and Current Affairs in the UPSC Syllabus for both the Preliminary and Main Stages of the Civil Services Exam.

Related Links :