By K Raveendran
The tension between freedom of expression and protection of reputation is both inevitable and delicate. Speech rights lie at the core of democratic governance, enabling citizens to critique, dissent, and challenge power. But reputation, dignity, and the risk of false or malicious harm also matter, and the law seeks to mediate between these competing values. What is troubling, however, is the growing trend of using defamation – especially criminal defamation – not as a last-resort remedy for real injury, but as a tool of suppression. And when this become a tool in the hands of the government, it is all the more dangerous. In that sense, it becomes a gag rather than a guardrail. The observation by the Supreme Court the other day that the time may have come to decriminalise defamation is not merely timely; it is essential if freedom of expression is to retain its meaning in a technologically connected, hypercritical age.
Criminal defamation laws are, in theory, meant to deter particularly egregious harm to reputation: defamation that is malicious, false, and causes serious injury. But in practice, these laws too often function as show-cases of power. Critics, journalists, dissenters, and even ordinary people expressing opinions are brought under the threat of criminal sanction. Businesses and politicians have used sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code not only to protect reputation, but also to intimidate critics and stifle inconvenient reporting.
The Supreme Court itself, while upholding criminal defamation in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, emphasised that this protection of reputation is itself a constitutional value, falling under Article 21, balanced against freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the possibility of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2). But what was once balanced may now be tipping. The sheer volume and pattern of criminal defamation cases, often involving public officials, political speech, or corporate interest, suggests that defamation law has begun to be used as a means to suppress criticism.
In a time when speech is instantaneous, widely distributed, and permanently stored, the risks of chilling dissent are higher. Critical commentary about religion, government, public policy, even historically or culturally accepted beliefs now often triggers defamation or blasphemy‐like responses. What was acceptable as opinion a decade ago may be prosecuted if someone feels offended, vindictive, or politically motivated. The legal thresholds for defamation are not always clear; some statutes shift burdens in ways that favour the complainant, sometimes with inadequate proof requirements; often there is no strong standard like ‘reckless disregard’ or ‘actual malice’ demanded of defamers, so long as reputation is claimed to have been harmed.
The Supreme Court’s remark that the time has come to decriminalise defamation during the hearing of The Wire’s plea is a vital signal. The court’s concern focuses especially on cases involving private individuals, where the public interest is low and the potential for misuse high. If criminal defamation continues to be available for every alleged insult, every critical article, every dissatisfied opinion, it will suffocate free discourse.
International norms tend to discourage criminal penalties for defamation. Human rights bodies have repeatedly called for decriminalisation or extreme limitation of criminal defamation, arguing that imprisonment is never appropriate merely for speech, even defamatory speech, in a democratic society. Many comparative jurisdictions have moved in this direction — reforming defamation laws to raise thresholds, require proof of malice, limit or remove criminal sanctions, and focus on civil remedies.
Of course, the risk of impunity, or of toxic defamatory speech under the garb of opinion, cannot be ignored. But these risks are better addressed by reforming civil law, by imposing higher proof requirements for public figures, by making processes more accessible to poorer complainants, by penalizing frivolous suits, rather than retaining criminal sanctions that carry with them the coercive power of state-enforced punishment.
Beyond the legal structure, there is also the social dimension: tolerance. A democracy’s vitality depends on its ability to sustain criticism, dissent, uncomfortable opinions. As technology advances, platforms proliferate, social media accelerates speech, and many voices previously marginalised now have tools, but those same tools make backlash swift, punitive, unforgiving. Comments about religion, tradition, history — matters once handled by civility or private discussion — are now litigated, sometimes criminalised. There is a narrowing of what is socially acceptable under fear, not principle. That narrowing undermines trust, debate, innovation, and the ability to correct errors or injustices.
In this context, the Supreme Court’s suggestion to re-examine criminal defamation offers a glimmer of hope. To move forward, what seems required is a multi-pronged approach: judicial activism in limiting the scope of criminal defamation; legislative reform to remove or narrowly carve it; clearer rules defining protected speech, explicit public interest exceptions; safe harbour for intermediaries and media reporting; robust standards of proof; access to speedy justice under civil law; and mechanisms to dismiss frivolous claims early with cost penalties. (IPA Service)
How Narendra Modi’s Ego Has Destroyed India’s South Asian Diplomacy In The Recent Past? 