Supreme Court judge says it’s high time defamation was decriminalised, Pg10

Key Highlights:

• Supreme Court Justice M.M. Sundresh suggested that it is time to decriminalize defamation, noting its increasing misuse by private individuals and political parties.
• In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation in Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India, deeming it a "reasonable restriction" on free speech.
• The observation was made while hearing a petition by the Foundation for Independent Journalism and a journalist from The Wire, seeking to quash summons in a defamation case filed by former JNU Professor Amita Singh.
• The Supreme Court has stayed summons in several recent criminal defamation cases, including those involving Rahul Gandhi, Shashi Tharoor, and others.

Detailed Insights:

• The debate on decriminalizing defamation revolves around balancing the right to reputation with the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in the Subramanian Swamy case established that criminalizing defamation was a reasonable restriction to protect an individual's reputation.
• Justice Sundresh's recent remark reopens the question of whether defamation by a private person should be treated as a crime, especially if it does not serve any public interest.
• The Supreme Court's stance in the Imran Pratapgarhi case (March 2025) emphasized that allegedly defamatory words should be judged from the perspective of reasonable and courageous individuals.
• The increasing number of defamation cases filed against politicians and journalists raises concerns about the potential chilling effect on free speech and the use of law for political vendettas.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Defamation: The act of harming someone's reputation by making false statements.
• Decriminalization: The process of removing an act from the list of crimes, making it a civil offense.
• Freedom of Speech: The right to express one's opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).