Supreme Court eye on defamation law

A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant had posted for final hearing today a batch of petitions filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swami, actor Vijaykant of DMDK party and others, challenging Section 499 and 500 IPC in the context of defamation cases slapped on them by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

However, on Wednesday, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi sought time for the Centre to file its response.

In his brief submissions, the AG said these provisions on criminal defamation are a necessary deterrent in a country where courts take 10 to 20 years for deciding a civil defamation cases claiming damages.

Since the question of interpretation of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution (reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression) was involved, he said the matter should be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench. Senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, supported the view and perception of the AG.

The Bench said “In our considered opinion, the said facet shall be addressed to and dealt with while dealing with the merits of the case. Be it noted, in the writ petition, a contention has been raised that in number of countries, criminal defamation has been abolished.

The question, thus, emerges whether abolition of such a criminal action in other countries can really have any impact or effect when this Court adjudges or decides the constitutional validity of a statutory provision, regard being had to our written, controlled and organic Constitution.”

Dr Swami contended that the two provisions really constrict the freedom of speech beyond reasonable limit. He argued that the very purpose of Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions), as would be evident from the debate in the provisional Parliament, was not meant to put such restrictions. The bench then posted the matter for final arguments on July 14 after all the parties filed their responses.