Penalty in proportion, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation in 2016, stating that reputation is part of the right to life.
• Justice M.M. Sundresh voiced concerns about the misuse of criminal defamation proceedings by private individuals and political actors.
• Criminal defamation proposes imprisonment for speech that injures reputation, which is disproportionate to the harm caused.
• Criminal defamation has become a tool of intimidation, with editors and political figures facing cases and summons.

Detailed Insights:

• Reputational injury can be addressed through monetary damages or injunctions, unlike physical harm.
• Since 2016, criminal defamation has been used to intimidate journalists and political figures, leading to self-censorship.
• Lower judiciary's tendency to issue summons without assessing the threshold of defamatory speech has worsened the problem.
• Criminal complainants have weaponized statements taken out of context, attaching the threat of jail time to contested interpretations.
• Civil courts can provide remedies like damages, injunctions, or retractions, balancing free expression and protecting reputation.
• Many countries, including the U.K., have abolished criminal defamation, deeming such laws incompatible with democratic debate.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Criminal Defamation: Proposes imprisonment for speech that injures reputation.
• Monetary Damages: Compensation awarded to the injured party in civil court.
• Injunctions: A court order that prohibits a party from doing a certain act.