The panel stated in its 285th report, which was turned in to the government, that the right to reputation needed to be sufficiently shielded from libel and slander. The commission’s recommendation makes sense because Article 19(2) allows defamation to be used as justification for “reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech and expression that is granted by Article 19(1)(a).
Additionally, the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 499 and 500, which set a maximum two-year jail sentence and fine, were upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2016, finding that it was legal to imprison someone for defaming another person.
Source: The Hindu
The fundamental idea that the right to reputation should be safeguarded cannot be contested. However, there is a “chilling effect” on free expression as a result of the criminal defamation legislation being abused to muzzle political opponents, activists, and journalists. There is no evidence to support the panel’s claim that the statute “ensures a balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation.”
Several politicians have brought criminal defamation lawsuits against media outlets and rival politicians in the last ten or so years. The Tamil Nadu government brought around 140 of these lawsuits against media outlets and journalists between 2002 and 2011. The filing of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” is another example of the law’s misuse.
Source: NDTV
The Editors Guild of India has been calling for the decriminalisation of defamation because of this. It is no longer illegal in a number of nations, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Sri Lanka. India has to take this step since those who have been harmed in terms of their reputation can already seek civil remedies.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
