In a significant move, the Madras High Court ruled that public servants and constitutional functionaries should not misuse criminal defamation law. The court specified that the State should not be used as a tool to initiate defamation proceedings against adversaries.
Case Review and Verdict
The ruling resulted from the quashing of criminal defamation proceedings initiated by the Madras state government against numerous media houses and journalists during Jayalalithaa’s tenure as Chief Minister in 2012 and 2013. The court clarified that the newspapers had merely published factual news and politician’s statements, meaning no criminal defamation was present as there were no personal imputations against anyone. However, aggrieved parties can prosecute some media houses individually before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 199 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if they feel defamed, but not before a Sessions Court due to the lack of defamation against the State.
Judgement Implications
The court made several noteworthy observations regarding how different entities should handle defamation cases. States were cautioned not to use criminal defamation cases to suppress democracy. Public servants and constitutional functionaries were reminded of their duty to serve the people, which includes being able to face criticism. The court urged states to act as guardians to all citizens when invoking defamation law, encouraging careful consideration before filing criminal defamation cases.
Guidelines for Public Prosecutors and Trial Courts
The court further emphasized that public prosecutors should handle cases with fairness and independence, avoiding blind eagerness for convictions. Meanwhile, trial courts were encouraged to rely on available records and only summon the accused if the prerequisites for a criminal defamation complaint against the State are met.
Role of Newspapers and Media Houses
The court underlined the responsibility of newspapers and media houses to publish news factually. If disagreements arise, political figures or constitutional functionaries can refute the information with a counter-press statement.
Defamation in India: Civil vs Criminal Laws
In India, defamation can be categorized as a civil wrong and a criminal offence. The difference lies in the goals of the two: civil law seeks redress by awarding compensation, while criminal law aims to punish wrongdoers and deter others from committing similar acts. Under Indian law, criminal defamation is defined by section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while civil defamation is based on tort law.
Legal Sections Pertaining to Defamation
According to Section 499 of the IPC, defamation could occur through words, signs, or visible representations, spoken or written about a person with the intent of damaging their reputation. Section 500 of IPC, pertaining to punishment for defamation, states that anyone who defames another could face imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. Notably, in a criminal case, defamation must be established beyond reasonable doubt, while in a civil suit, damages can be awarded based on probabilities.
Supreme Court Ruling on Criminal Defamation Law
The Supreme Court of India, in the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India case in 2014, upheld the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation law. This ruling highlights the ongoing and critical balance between protecting individuals’ reputations and preserving freedom of speech and expression.
