Read Editorial with D2G – Ep CXXXXIV

In Read Editorial With D2G
May 16, 2016

A DISAPPOINTING VERDICT

READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
 D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.

MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC

The Supreme Court verdict upholding the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that make defamation a criminal offence is retrograde (A retrograde action is one that you think makes a situation worse rather than better – पतित ) and out of tune with the times. Many countries, including neighbouring Sri Lanka, have decriminalised defamation, which should be a civil offence alone. The court has unfortunately accepted the self-serving argument by the Centre that criminal defamation does not have a chilling, inhibiting (If something inhibits an event or process, it prevents it or slows it down – रोकना ) effect on the freedom of expression. In fact, there is enough anecdotal (Anecdotal evidence is based on individual accounts, rather than on reliable research or statistics, and so may not be valid – उपाख्यान ) evidence that its existence on the statute book leads to self-censorship, and that it is often used to stifle legitimate criticism.

The court has sought to create an artificial balance between the fundamental right of free speech under Article 19(1) (a) and the right to reputation as part of one’s right to life under Article 21. When an individual has the recourse to sue respondents in civil courts for damages against loss of reputation, there is hardly any justification to keep the criminal option open. It is true that ‘defamation’ is one of the reasonable restrictions to free speech envisaged (If you envisage something, you imagine that it is true, real, or likely to happen – परिकल्पना की गई है ) in the Constitution, but this is not enough to justify retaining its criminal component. In the Indian context, criminal defamation is not generally a dispute between two individuals. It is invariably a shield for public servants, political leaders, corporations and institutions against critical scrutiny as well as questions from the media and citizens. The challenge to the validity of Section 499 and 500 of the IPC was undoubtedly the biggest free speech issue to have arisen in recent times. The two-judge Bench could have referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.

If criminal defamation is really needed to protect reputations, it is befuddling (If something befuddles you, it confuses your mind or thoughts – मदहोश हो जाना ) how the right to reputation under Article 21 can be extended to collectives such as the government, corporations and institutions, which presumably have the resources to set right damage to their reputations. The origins of criminal defamation lie in the Court of the Star Chamber of King Henry VIII, where it was used as a means of “punishing disrespect towards authority”. Some State governments seem to go by this principle while filing defamation complaints against political rivals, media organisations and journalists.

The outcome is often of little significance, as it is the process that is the punishment. The court could have read down Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows public prosecutors to step into the shoes of allegedly defamed public servants. It is patently unfair to allow the State to use its legal machinery to suppress criticism without public servants concerned being required to testify in court on the actual injury or loss of reputation suffered by them. The faith the court has reposed in the ability of prosecutors and lower court judges to apply their mind before instituting cases or issuing summons (A summons is an order to come and see someone – अदालत का बुलावा ) is worrying. Given the presence of key political figures among those who challenged the provisions, perhaps the last hope is that Parliament may be rallied to scrap (A scrap of something is a very small piece or amount of it – रद्दी माल ) it.

*************************