_edited.png)
Article by - Shriyans Bansal, Institute of Law, Nirma University
The law of defamation in India sits at the boundary between two vital rights—the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to reputation. The freedom of speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India; however, it is not absolute. Defamation is a "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(2), permitting the state to impose restrictions on speech in the interests of public order, decency and morality, and for the protection of individual reputation. The conflicting tension between these competing rights has led to numerous difficult legal issues as the Courts attempt to balance free expression with protection for reputation.
Defamation Law in India: Overview
In India, the regulation of defamation occurs within the ambit of both civil and criminal law. Civil defamation is governed by the Law of Torts, where the remedy is typically monetary. The statute on criminal defamation is enshrined in u/s 356 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). Section 499 defines defamation and includes exceptions where the expression would not amount to defamation, and Section 500 prescribes punishment for defamation in the form of imprisonment for a term that may extend up to two years, or with a fine or both.
The Indian Penal Code provisions on defamation have been criticized for having a chilling effect on free speech, due to the aspect of imprisonment. However, there has been insistence from court that these provisions are not unconstitutional, as it seeks to achieve a legitimate purpose, which is to protect individuals from reputational harm. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court ratified the constitutionality of criminal defamation, holding that reputation is covered within the right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgement notably stated that no right, including the right to free speech, is absolute, and it is crucial to balance competing rights and interests within a democratic society when necessary.
Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) and its Limits
In a democracy, the right to free speech and expression is inherently important because it allows individuals to express opinions, share information, and engage in public debate and discussion. This right is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, Article 19(2) of the Constitution states that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, which includes defamation as one of the grounds for restriction.
The Indian judiciary has performed an important function to interpret the scope of these restrictions. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), for the first time, the Supreme Court of India stated that not every statement, however scoffing, insulting and harassing, is defamatory. The Court observed that public debate and discourse are impossible in a democracy without tolerance of others to hold a different view. Judgementally, it confined the mean of defamation against the core value of the right to free speech, minimizing the potential misuse of this right - the right to exploit the possibility of defamation - as a weapon to silence reasonable criticism and debate.
Defamation and the Doctrine of Responsible Speech
The doctrine of responsible speech is one of the major ways to navigate the conflict between defamation law and free speech. This is a well-established doctrine that has commonly been applied by the courts to determine whether a speech that would normally be considered defamatory can be defended as a legitimate exercise of free speech. This principle can be seen most recently in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011) where the Delhi High Court recognized that speech on matters of public interest must be protected but should also be responsible and must not seriously harm individuals' reputations unless there are factual basis for doing so. The Court recognized that one's right to criticize companies or institutions is part of the expression of free speech; however, that must be balanced with a corporation's right to protect its reputation. In particular, a statement made in the public interest and based on fact can be a valid defence to defamation, even if it has harmed one's reputation.
Criminal Defamation: Constitutional Challenge and Judicial Approach
Criminal defamation has faced numerous legal challenges in India, with the courts playing a pivotal role in balancing the protection of reputation with the right to free speech. A number of significant cases have influenced the jurisprudence surrounding the topic of criminal defamation in India and have attempted to balance reputation protection and free speech. In Prashant Bhushan v. Arun Jaitley (2015), the Delhi High Court analysed whether fair comment is a valid defence to defamation. The court ruled that fair comment is a valid defence to defamation where the statement is true and made in good faith, especially in the context of political speech. The case highlighted the importance of intent and the accuracy of facts underpinning statements in defamation cases involving public figures.
Likewise, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), while the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, it reaffirmed the principle that free speech cannot acquiesce defamatory content, especially in the online context. The ruling emphasized the growing need for balancing the rights to digital freedom and reputational rights in the social media age. These rulings are indicative of the courts' efforts in ensuring free speech remains robust but also to prevent misuse of free speech for the purposes of making defamatory statements about individuals' reputations, especially in the public sphere and when made online.
Civil Defamation and the Role of the Press
The bench said, "The freedom of press is a valuable privilege and a powerful monitoring tool for which the judges must be the last person to interfere with. But at the same time the press should be well aware of its duties and responsibilities." The judiciary has, by and large, been found following a balanced approach. On one hand the press should be left free to function, and on the other, it should be held liable for scurrilous and irresponsible reporting. In the case of Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) , the "Auto Shankar case" as it is called, the Supreme Court emphasised that the public have a right to know about the life and antecedents of a candidate contesting an election. If the publication of defamatory material becomes a crucial issue pertaining to public interest, the press shall be let-off if the statement is generally true or the public has been given to understand that the statement has been published on reasonable verification. If the publication is on plausible grounds the defamation suit shall not be maintainable.
The Internet and Social Media: New Frontiers for Defamation
The growth of the internet, as well as the rapid uptake of social media, have added dimensions to Indian defamation law. The internet is unique in that it provides users with unparalleled latitude to express their opinions, and advancements in technology create novel challenges in regulating defamatory publications. Defamation on social media can be more damaging than traditional segments of media due to the speed and extent of distribution of the original publication, meaning that reputations can be damaged catastrophic rate.
In Dolly Bindra v. State (2016), the Delhi High Court emphasized that defamation on social media warrants special consideration due to its ability to reach large audiences expeditiously and with little effort. The Court recognized that social media provides outlets for free expression, but platforms cannot become refuges for irresponsible speech that damage reputations. Courts have increasingly held operators of social media platforms accountable for any defamatory content on the platform after being made aware of its publication.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, including its intermediary guidelines, gives the courts, victims of defamation, and lawmakers, a framework to manage online defamatory content. The practical aspects of determining the liabilities of action and inaction for intermediaries, compels intermediaries out of liability if they act when notified of defamatory matter notwithstanding the egregious slander against the victim which cannot unduly extend to responsibility of the intermediary. Furthermore, social media is contributing to declining trust in public discourse. The continued concerns with misrepresentation, trolling and increased legitimate concern from victims of harm propagated via social media and the lack of accountability has led to courts re-examining the guidelines for balancing free speech with protecting privacy in rules governing online speech to provide satisfied victims of defamation redress.
Conclusion
In India, defamation law continues to evolve as courts grapple with balancing the right to free speech with the need to protect individual reputations. The judiciary has made it clear that neither right is absolute and that both must be carefully weighed in each case. The development of doctrines like responsible speech, combined with an understanding of the unique challenges posed by the internet and social media, has enabled courts to navigate the complexities of modern defamation law.