Why SC's dismissal of plea on defamation law is significant

The Supreme Court on May 13 dismissed a batch of petitions filed by leaders such as BJP's Subramanian Swamy, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal against the constitutional validity of the defamation law. Hence, the apex court has, in effect, upheld the constitutional validity of penal provisions on defamation law, observing that the right to freedom of speech is "not an absolute right".

A. Supreme Court's order

The verdict was reserved on August 13 last year after the court heard the matter for over a month.

"We have held that penal provisions are constitutionally valid," a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant said.

"The right to freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right," the bench said, adding that sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, dealing with the criminal defamation, and section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are constitutionally valid.

However, the bench said the stay of criminal proceedings granted by it in the trial court on the batch of petitions challenging the issue of summons will continue for eight weeks, during which the petitioners can file their appeal before respective High Courts for seeking reliefs in terms of today's judgement. The bench said the interim protection given to them will continue for eight weeks.

B. What was the batch of petitions about

The constitutional validity of penal laws on defamation was challenged on the ground that they are "outmoded" and inconsistent with right to freedom of speech and expression.

The pleas had sought setting aside of sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the IPC and suggested that there is a need to decriminalise penal provision for offence of defamation.

C. Centre's stand

Pitching for their retention in the statute book, the Centre had strongly batted for the laws on grounds including that they have stood the test of time.

The bench observed, "Difficult to perceive that provision on criminal defamation has chilling effect on right to freedom of speech and expression."

It also said, "A person's right to freedom of speech has to be balanced with the other person's right to reputation."

D. Stances of Swamy, Rahul, Kejriwal

Rahul and Swamy have been charged with criminal defamation under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC for their political speeches made in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra respectively, while Kejriwal is facing cases under the same provisions lodged by BJP's Nitin Gadkari and others.

Like Rahul and Swamy, the Delhi CM suggested that the penal provisions conceived in the British era are now "outmoded" and "over protective" of public servants and inconsistent with democratic discourse.

Earlier, Kejriwal had told the court that there was a need to decriminalise penal provisions for offence of defamation as there have been "inevitable abuse" of the colonial law which needs to be re-examined rigorously.

The Aam Aadmi Party leader had told the bench that there are several grounds to scrap them as the two provisions are violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

E. Significance of the order on the petitioners

All three of these three leaders - Swamy, Rahul and Kejriwal - are facing defamation charges. Any adverse order against them will change the political dynamics. For instance, if Kejriwal loses the defamation suit filed by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley against him in the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) case, it will have a major bearing on the politics of Delhi. Kejriwal might be jailed and it will change the whole politics of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Kejriwal and five of his party colleagues are out on bail at present in the matter.

F. What do sections 499 and 500 CrPC say

499. Defamation - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

500. Punishment for defamation - Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(With inputs from agencies)