A disappointing verdict
The judgement of the two-member SC bench upholding the provisions of criminal defamation is deeply disappointing. An archaic law misused for centuries is out of step with modern times even if the era is marked by the shrillness of public debate, the coarseness of its language and the consequent damage to reputations. Considering the number of politicians who are petitioners in challenging the very concept of criminal defamation, it is obvious who are the ones most affected by interminably having to prove their innocence.
The judges determined that the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(a) of the Constitution and the right to reputation under Article 21 are at loggerheads and that the former has necessarily to be circumscribed by the latter. The Centre’s argument that criminal defamation does not have a chilling, inhibiting effect on the freedom of expression seems to have been accepted. The law is so obviously loaded against individuals, who even legitimately question the working of the government and its institutions that one would have thought the courts would have been more sympathetic to those who challenge the Establishment by way of just words.
The frequency with which the law has been used by governments, particularly Tamil Nadu, should itself be an argument for how it is used to intimidate political opponents. We suspect that in this very legalistic exercise the letter of the law has won over its spirit. The route out may be for all legislators to re-examine the law and vote it out in Parliament. But the hitch would be that ruling alliances would always favour a law that protects them from the haranguing words of the Opposition.