The constitutional validity of penal provisions that make defamation a crime is being questioned by politicians, including the Delhi chief minister who when out of power even defied a court edict to provide surety for bail and spent time in jail until he saw the wisdom of being a free person.
The principal ground for objecting to Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as a BJP leader has done, is that criminal defamation proceedings are used by politicians against opponents to settle scores by tying them up in endless court appearances. Invariably, it is politicians in power who manipulate the system by filing cases that represent a nuisance value rather than true redemption from charges.
Such charges, even if they tend to be unsubstantiated, are prone to be aired more on the eve of elections, as in 2014. Redress should lie in civil court proceedings rather than in misusing penal provisions. In a positive move to examine the subject in detail, the top court has already appointed two former attorneys general to assist it in deciding on what is a “debatable issue”. The conclusions are that what should generally be dismissed as mere political posturing becomes a handle to persecute political opponents.
Media houses are also prone to becoming defendants in litigation for merely stating the charges one politician makes against another. A number of countries have decriminalised defamation. Even the procedure to seek civil liability has been tightened to allow only those suffering serious harm to be able to file a civil suit. There is no place for criminal defamation in Indian civil society.
