The recent refusal by a Delhi court to proceed with a criminal defamation case levied by a former Union Minister at a journalist, who had used Twitter to accuse him of sexual harassment, had been making significant rounds in the media. This decision was reached after the court reviewed and considered the allegations of systematic abuse within workplaces due to the absence of a mechanism to address sexual harassment grievances at the time of the supposed incident. It is worth noting that this event took place before the Supreme Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines and the enactment of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Court’s Ruling: Prioritizing Right of Life and Dignity Over Reputation
The court ruled that protecting the reputation of an individual can’t be prioritized over a woman’s right to life and dignity. They further elaborated on the concept of ‘Right to Reputation,’ which, according to the Supreme Court, is a crucial part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, they clarified that the existence of Section 499 (Criminal Defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 doesn’t restrict freedom of speech and expression; instead, it ensures that a shared value of public reputation is maintained.
The Right to Life, Liberty and Dignity Under Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one should be deprived of their life or personal liberty unless according to the law. It grants every person the basic right to life and personal liberty. According to the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, implying that living is not merely a physical right but also includes preserving human dignity. Women have the right to voice their grievances on any platform, irrespective of the time elapsed since the incident.
Understanding Defamation in India: Both Civil and Criminal
In India, defamation can be classified as either a civil wrong or a criminal offence. A civil wrong provides redress by awarding compensation while criminal law seeks to punish the wrongdoer to prevent similar offenses. According to Indian law, criminal defamation is defined as an offense under section 499 of the IPC. Civil defamation, on the other hand, relies on tort law which uses an accumulating body of case laws to define a wrong.
Breaking Down Section 499: Defamation with Exceptions
Section 499 of the IPC states that defamation could be carried out through words intended to be spoken or read, signs, or visible representations. It might be directed at harming a person’s reputation knowingly or with reason to believe that it will harm his reputation. However, Section 499 also lists exceptions such as the “imputation of truth” necessary for “public good” that needs to be published, concerning the public conduct of government officials or any person involved in a public issue.
Penalties and Validity of Defamation Under Law
According to Section 500 of the IPC, a person found guilty of defamation can face up to two years of simple imprisonment, fine or both. In a criminal case, defamation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit, damages can be awarded based on probabilities. The constitutional validity of criminal defamation law was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India in the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India case, 2014.