How the Times of India and The Hindu covered the stories:
http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/index.aspx?eid=31814&dt=20160514
May 14 2016 : The Times of India (Pune)
SC upholds validity of criminal defamation
New Delhi:
|
Upholding the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions in the IPC drafted during the colonial era, the Supreme Court on Friday said these do not muzzle free speech and asked FULL COVERAGE: P 17 politicians Rahul Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy and Arvind Kejriwal and others to face trial for alleged statements harming others' reputation.
Bigger the stature of a person making the defamatory statement, the graver the of fence, the court said. “Position of the persons making the imputation would regulate the standard of care and caution,“ it said as it favoured retention of criminal defamation as an option to redress hurt caused to the reputation of a complainant.
“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right,“ the court said. Cumulatively , it (the defamation laws) serves social inter est... Each is entitled to digni ty of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others' right to person or reputation,“ a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant said in its 267page judgment rejecting arguments that criminal defamation was a legal tool to silence free speech. Apart from Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, BJP leader Swamy and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, as many as 19 others, including many journalists, had challenged the validity of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC that permits a private citizen to file a criminal defamation complaint before a trial court for being subjected to insinuating utterances.
The petitioners had said these provisions had a chilling effect on their fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
During pendency of the peti tions challenging the validity of criminal defamation provisions, the SC had stayed all proceedings in trial courts. The bench said the stay on proceedings would continue for another eight weeks to facilitate the petitioners to move high courts concerned to challenge the trial court summons issued to them.
However, if before approaching the apex court, any of them had already failed in the HC in challenging the summons, “he shall face trial and put forth his defence in accordance with law“, the bench clarified.
Writing the judgment for the bench, elucidating on concepts of free speech, democracy , dignity and reputation of individuals and referring to foreign case laws, Justice Misra said, “It is extremely difficult to subscribe to the view that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.“ The court said reputation of a person was intrinsic to most precious right to life guaranteed under Article 21and for its protection, Parliament has kept intact Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
--
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/criminal-defamation-does-not-have-chilling-effect-on-free-speech-sc/article8594163.ece
Stay on cases against netas for 8 weeks: SC
Upholding the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions in the IPC drafted during the colonial era, the Supreme Court on Friday said these do not muzzle free speech and asked FULL COVERAGE: P 17 politicians Rahul Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy and Arvind Kejriwal and others to face trial for alleged statements harming others' reputation.Bigger the stature of a person making the defamatory statement, the graver the of fence, the court said. “Position of the persons making the imputation would regulate the standard of care and caution,“ it said as it favoured retention of criminal defamation as an option to redress hurt caused to the reputation of a complainant.
“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right,“ the court said. Cumulatively , it (the defamation laws) serves social inter est... Each is entitled to digni ty of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others' right to person or reputation,“ a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant said in its 267page judgment rejecting arguments that criminal defamation was a legal tool to silence free speech. Apart from Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, BJP leader Swamy and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, as many as 19 others, including many journalists, had challenged the validity of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC that permits a private citizen to file a criminal defamation complaint before a trial court for being subjected to insinuating utterances.
The petitioners had said these provisions had a chilling effect on their fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
During pendency of the peti tions challenging the validity of criminal defamation provisions, the SC had stayed all proceedings in trial courts. The bench said the stay on proceedings would continue for another eight weeks to facilitate the petitioners to move high courts concerned to challenge the trial court summons issued to them.
However, if before approaching the apex court, any of them had already failed in the HC in challenging the summons, “he shall face trial and put forth his defence in accordance with law“, the bench clarified.
Writing the judgment for the bench, elucidating on concepts of free speech, democracy , dignity and reputation of individuals and referring to foreign case laws, Justice Misra said, “It is extremely difficult to subscribe to the view that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.“ The court said reputation of a person was intrinsic to most precious right to life guaranteed under Article 21and for its protection, Parliament has kept intact Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right,“ the court said. Cumulatively , it (the defamation laws) serves social inter est... Each is entitled to digni ty of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others' right to person or reputation,“ a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant said in its 267page judgment rejecting arguments that criminal defamation was a legal tool to silence free speech. Apart from Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, BJP leader Swamy and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, as many as 19 others, including many journalists, had challenged the validity of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC that permits a private citizen to file a criminal defamation complaint before a trial court for being subjected to insinuating utterances.
The petitioners had said these provisions had a chilling effect on their fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
During pendency of the peti tions challenging the validity of criminal defamation provisions, the SC had stayed all proceedings in trial courts. The bench said the stay on proceedings would continue for another eight weeks to facilitate the petitioners to move high courts concerned to challenge the trial court summons issued to them.
However, if before approaching the apex court, any of them had already failed in the HC in challenging the summons, “he shall face trial and put forth his defence in accordance with law“, the bench clarified.
Writing the judgment for the bench, elucidating on concepts of free speech, democracy , dignity and reputation of individuals and referring to foreign case laws, Justice Misra said, “It is extremely difficult to subscribe to the view that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.“ The court said reputation of a person was intrinsic to most precious right to life guaranteed under Article 21and for its protection, Parliament has kept intact Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Ruling on defamation disappoints experts
New Delhi:
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
|
`Could Be Used To Stifle Free Speech'
Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee and ex-solicitor general Harish Salve were disappointed with the Supreme Court's judgment on Friday upholding the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions in Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.
Sorabjee said, “It is a rather disappointing judgment. Defamation does not have to be a criminal offence. It can be misused to stifle free speech. Imposing heavy damages for harm to reputation is the right remedy .“
Salve said the court could have at least nuanced the application of criminal defamation provisions, which were being increasingly used to harass persons. “It should also be laid down how and when truth can be a robust defence in criminal defamations.“
In a lighter vein, he said he would love to take a second crack at the constitutional validity of criminal defamation proceedings at an appropriate time in future.
--
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/criminal-defamation-does-not-have-chilling-effect-on-free-speech-sc/article8594163.ece
The Hindu
State’s duty is to protect reputation, says apex court ruling on batch of petitions by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and media associations, among others.
In a judgment that holds far-reaching implications for political dissent and a free press, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld a colonial and pre-Constitutional law criminalising defamation.
The 268-page verdict dismissed apprehensions, raised by personalities across the political spectrum and media organisations championing the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, that criminal defamation may have a chilling effect on the freedom to circulate one’s independent view and “not to join in a chorus or sing the same song.”
The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and media associations, among others.
The court refused exhortations that penalisation of defamation is past its time, and the nation now risks the danger of being reduced to a “frozen democracy.”
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant said the reputation of an individual was an equally important right and stood on the same pedestal as free speech. The court said it would be a stretch to say that upholding criminal defamation in modern times would amount to imposition of silence.
Place for dissent
“Mutual respect is the fulcrum of fraternity that assures dignity. It does not mean that there cannot be dissent. It does not convey that all should join the chorus or sing the same song. Indubitably not. One has a right to freedom of speech and expression. One is also required to maintain the idea of fraternity that assures the dignity of the individual,” said Justice Misra, who authored the verdict.
The court held that criminalisation of defamation to protect individual dignity of life and reputation is a “reasonable restriction” on the fundamental right of free speech and expression. “The right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is an individual’s fundamental right,” Justice Misra observed.
'Defamation, a crime against society'
The Supreme Court which upheld the criminal defamation law on Friday held that deliberate injury to the reputation of an individual is not a mere private wrong, worth only a civil case for damages.
Instead, it is a “crime” committed against society at large and the State has a duty to redress the hurt caused to its citizen’s dignity. “Nobody has a right to denigrate others’ right to person or reputation,” the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant said.
Thus, Sections 499 and 500 of Lord Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code of 1860, which prescribes two years’ imprisonment for a person found guilty of defamation won the court’s approbation. It said though free speech is a “highly valued and cherished right”, imprisonment is a proportionate punishment for defamatory remarks.
“Interest of the people involved in the acts of expression should be looked at not only from the perspective of the speaker but also the place at which he speaks, the scenario, the audience, the reaction of the publication, the purpose of the speech and the forum in which the citizen exercises his freedom of speech and expression,” Justice Misra reasoned.
The petitioners facing criminal defamation trial have been given eight weeks to approach the High Courts concerned under Article 226 and Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against them. For this purpose, the apex court has stayed the criminal proceedings against them for eight weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment