• HOME
  • UNMAI
  • VIDUTHALAI
  • PERIYAR TV
  • PERIYAR PINJU
Newsletter
Modern rationalist
Advertisement
  • Periyar Speaks
  • Social Justice
  • Rationalist
  • Feminism
  • Lovable Life
No Result
View All Result
  • Periyar Speaks
  • Social Justice
  • Rationalist
  • Feminism
  • Lovable Life
No Result
View All Result
Modern rationalist
No Result
View All Result

SLANDER, LIBEL AND DEFAMATION Vs FREEDOM OF SPEACH

by Yuvaraj
October 26, 2018
in Cover Story
0

Related articles

SYDNEY INTERVIEW

April 10, 2025

‘ENDEMIC NOT TO BE PANDEMIC’

April 9, 2025

S.Rajarathnam Prolific Writer and Renowned Tax Consultant

Should Freedom of Speech  a valuable right in a democracy, have a limitation?  Should slander, libel and defamation  be accepted as something to be  tolerated?  Slander can kill  as Shakespeare in Much Ado About  Nothing about a character subjected to slander –

    “Done to death by slanderous tongues,
Was the Hero that here lies.”

He called it a poison,  short, calumny and squint eyed  and  foulest whelp of sin.  Should it become a  curb to choke the right to speech or freedom of speech  enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of our Constitution?

The law before the Constitution, which continues till date was Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  against defamation no doubt, with ten exceptions and  Section 500  providing for fine or imprisonment  upto two years or both.  Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,  provides for prosecution  for defamation.

There were as many as twenty five criminal cases including one by Mr. Subramanian Swamy, which were  consolidated and became the subject matter  of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.184 of 2014 questioning the validity  of the prosecution provisions seeking to have them declared  ultra vires  as violative of Article 19(1)(g) recognising the freedom of speech  as a Fundamental Right.  The cases were argued by eminent counsels for both sides with two more acting  as amicus curae  at the invitation of the Supreme Court, which in a judgment running to 267 pages  dealt with all the arguments before its conclusion.

The poser

The judgement is replete with the history of the right to freedom recognised in all democracies  particularly in written constitutions  of not only India but also U.S. and  other democracies, besides Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The right  to  free expression  is understandable on merits.  So is the case for prosecution  against defamation, so as to protect the reputation, which is equally valuable.  Can  they be reconciled?

Freedom of speech – Its sanctity

Freedom of speech in a democracy is a highly treasured value.  The Court has listed authorities from literature and precedents as to its precious nature and  glorified sanctity at the top of structured pyramid. Freedom of speech is treated as the life of the free people, who has not mortgaged their  ideas or succumbed to the folly of artificially cultivated social norms.

Bury in his work History of Freedom of Thought (1913) has observed that freedom of expression is “a supreme condition of mental and moral progress”.   In the words of American Judges, it is “absolutely indispensible for the preservation of a free society in which government is based upon the consent of an informed citizenry and is dedicated to the protection of the rights of all, even the most despised minorities”.

Judge Brandeis  in Whitney Vs. California 250 US 616; 63 L Ed 1173 (1919) pointed out  as under:

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”

If there is no freedom,  one cannot do  away with such irrational aspects of our life.  To say  that there will be an imminent collapse, if such  irrational beliefs are questioned under the law of defamation, there can be no progress.  There can be no boundary in a growing  democracy for freedom of speech, if democracy is expected to thrive.

In Romesh Thapar Vs State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124,  the majority opined that freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular Government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of abuse. But the Framers of the Constitution may well have reflected with Madison, who was ‘the leading spirit in the preparation of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution’, that ‘it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits’ (Near Vs Minnesota 283 U.S. 607 at 717-8, L Ed p. 1368.).

Reasonable Restrictions

The Courts extolled freedom of speech unreservedly while recognising its possible use.  In  Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. Vs Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578,  the Courts have also expressed a caution in that  the freedom  is not an absolute right reiterated in  Sahara India Real Estate  Corporation Ltd.  Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603 in following words:

“Freedom of expression which includes freedom of the press has a capacious content and is not restricted to expression of thoughts and ideas which are accepted and acceptable but also to those which offend or shock any section of the population. It also includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources. In essence, the freedom of expression embodies the right to know. However, under our Constitution no right in Part III is absolute.  Freedom of expression is not an absolute value under our Constitution. It must not be forgotten that no single value, no matter exalted, can bear the full burden of upholding a democratic system of government.”

The Supreme Court while reversing the ban of the High Court  barring a public view of the Tamil film Ore Oru Gramathile, as it was against the aspirations  of the Tamils for reservations of under-privileged, pointed out that the law allows dissent in following words:
“In democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song. Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken for granted. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means.”

Proportionate restrictions – Balancing of rights

Reasonable restrictions, while understanding the need for freedom of speech,  are  recognised without diluting the essence of freedom. The underlying  purpose of restriction  is that  the remedy sought by the restriction should not be disproportionate.  It will be subject to prevailing conditions of the time.  It should not be excessive or prohibitive.  It should be circumscribed by the objective standards under social control not overlooking  the general objective of our Constitution for an  egalitarian society   and a welfare State.

Social control which includes public interest has a role. The concept  of social interest has to be borne in mind while considering reasonableness of the restriction imposed on a right. The social interest principle would include the felt needs of the society.  Right to say  what may displease  or annoy others cannot, however,  be throttled or garroted.

It is in this context,  that any attempt on criminalisation  of defamation was required to be considered, subject to rigid conditions not  impinging  Directive Principles and Preamble to the Constitution and not forgetting  that individual rights form fundamental fulcrum  of collective harmony illustrated by  the rhetoric  statement of Patrick Henry, when he saw in liberty a freedom devoid of slavery –

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

What is required is  balancing the contending rights with none of  them being taken as absolute right.

Reputation

Right to life is a right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it  and it is not merely restricted to bare necessities  of life like food, clothing and shelter.  Right to dignity  has been treated as an inherent facet of  Article 21.  In the name of  freedom of speech and expression, should one be allowed to mar the reputation of others  as is understood within the  ambit of defamation as defined in criminal law.

Towards reconciliation

When there are contending rights as between freedom of  expression and the right to dignity of life and reputation, one must  remember what the Supreme Court decided in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India (1962) 3 SCR 842;  AIR 1962 SC 305 as under:

“A citizen is entitled to enjoy each and every one of the freedoms together and clause (1) does not prefer one freedom to another. That is the plain meaning of this clause. It follows from this that the State cannot make a law which directly restricts one freedom even for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom.”

Same sentiment  was expressed  in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation’s case (supra) in following words:

“Under our Constitution, probably, no values are absolute. All important values, therefore, must be qualified and balanced against other important, and often competing, values. This process of definition, qualification and balancing is as much required with respect to the value of freedom of expression as it is for other values”.

It is in this context,  it was felt that  reconciliation  is possible between right to freedom of speech and the limitation placed on defamation.

The seminal point is permissibility of criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction as understood under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. To elucidate, the submission is that criminal defamation, a pre-Constitution law is totally alien to the concept of free speech. As stated earlier, the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is an individual’s fundamental right and, therefore, balancing of fundamental right is imperative. The Court has spoken about synthesis and overlapping of fundamental rights, which sometimes raises conflict  between two rights and competing values. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, the right of another cannot be jeopardized.

Reputation  of one  cannot be  allowed to be crucified  at the altar of others’ right  of freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court also tested  the issue posed  in the light of  the touchstone of constitutional goals of fraternity  in the preamble and fundamental duties under Article 51A of the Constitution.  An individual has not only  right under the Constitution, but  also responsibility to live up to the concepts of brotherhood (fraternity) and strengthen societal interest.   In this view, there is no conflict  between the fundamental right to freedom of speech  and the  restraint placed by section 499 and 500  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  and Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Fundamental duties  has been considered as placing a restraint on absolute  unbundled freedom in more than one decision.  In AIIMS Students’ Union Vs AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428,  it was pointed out as under:

“… Fundamental duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice, peoples wish as manifested through Article 51A, can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. Constitutional enactment of fundamental duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab, even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values.”

Same view was taken in P.A. Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra (2008) 6 SCC 537 and Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012) 5 SCC 1  in three parts, one of fundamental rights and the other fundamental principles of governance and the third fundamental duties of citizens.  The individual interest of each seeks collective interest and correspondingly  collective interest enhanced individual interest.  It must be pointed out that  for an offence under Section 499, mens rea is a condition  precedent for the charge of the offence.  There must be an indication  of forming or knowing or having reason to believe  that it will  harm the reputation of another.  Careful application of each of the  ten exceptions in the Section 499  will offer a shelter against the abuse of this provision.  The defamation law is clear  and not vague as those  for doing away with this law would believe.

It may be pointed out that truth is not always a defence.  It respects privacy.  It does  not recognise public interest without any norm or guidance.   It excepts statement made honestly in good faith for public good.

Conclusion

It is in the light of the above law,  the twenty five cases before the Supreme Court in this case, had to be decided. The cases “did not deserve to be  quashed” as there was no absolute privilege  for freedom of speech, so that  each accused must face the trial and enter  his defence.

Defamation law is not  vague and has many exceptions.   Dr. Singhvi, a senior counsel, reproduced in the judgement gave illustrations of unacceptable defence against defamation reproduced in the judgement:

“An imputation that a person is impotent; a statement is made in pubic that a particular person suffers from AIDS; an imputation that a person is a victim of rape; and an imputation that the child of a married couple is not fathered by the husband but born out of an affair with another man.”

The judgement proceeds to observe :

“Needless to emphasise that when a law limits a constitutional right which many laws do, such limitation is constitutional if it is proportional. The law imposing restriction is proportional if it is meant to achieve a proper purpose, and if the measures taken to achieve such a purpose are rationally connected to the purpose, and such measures are necessary. Such limitations should not be arbitrary or of  an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public.”

The notion of democracy  includes human rights which  is  a corner stone in Indian democracy.  There has to be  a  balance between  constitutional rights and the public interest.  Right to freedom of speech  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The law   seeks to achieve a balance and if so implemented, there  could possibly be no grievance.

The existing social climate does require the law against defamation. A criminal complaint  of defamation  at the threshold  should be either in writing  made by public prosecutor and/ or  to be considered as a  matter involving a prima facie case  in the  court of sessions.  A public   prosecution cannot act like a post office  or the magistrate as the functionary of the State Government.  Criminal law  is a serious matter and  it cannot be set in motion as a matter of course.  Defamation law will, therefore, have to stay.

Previous Post

GAY MARRIAGE OF WOMAN CLERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Next Post

SELF RESPECT MARRIAGE Proposed by in Tamil Nadu

Related Posts

SYDNEY INTERVIEW

by Modern Rationalist
April 10, 2025
0

During his twenty days tour through Australian cities, Asiriyar Dr.K.Veeramani visited Sydney in the State of New South Wales. On...

‘ENDEMIC NOT TO BE PANDEMIC’

by Modern Rationalist
April 9, 2025
0

Melbourne Function. Federal MPs Hon. Dr. Carina Garland, Hon. Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah, Asiriyar, Arulmozhi and Hon. John Mullahy, Federal MP....

STATES’ RIGHTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSION

STATES’ RIGHTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSION

by Modern Rationalist
March 19, 2025
0

Indian Constitution says ‘India is Union of States’. The governing powers are distributed exclusively with Union government and State governments...

OPPOSITION TO UGC IMPOSING NEP

OPPOSITION TO UGC IMPOSING NEP

by Modern Rationalist
March 19, 2025
0

On 11th January, 2025, a highly significant, seminar was held at Periyar Thidal in Chennai, to discuss the dire need...

UGC REGULATIONS or STATE UNIVERSITY LAWS?

UGC REGULATIONS or STATE UNIVERSITY LAWS?

by Modern Rationalist
March 19, 2025
0

K. Ashok Vardhan Shetty, IAS (Retd) Former Vice Chancellor of Indian Maritime University Six of Tamil Nadu’s State universities are...

Load More

All Issues

Select Month
    • HOME
    • UNMAI
    • VIDUTHALAI
    • PERIYAR TV
    • PERIYAR PINJU
    Call us: +91 89390 89888

    © 2023 Modern Rationalist Magazine

    No Result
    View All Result
    • Periyar Speaks
    • Social Justice
    • Rationalist
    • Feminism
    • Lovable Life

    © 2023 Modern Rationalist Magazine