Unlike many other countries, India has both civil defamation (if you defame someone, you have

to pay compensation), and criminal defamation (you defame someone, you go to jail). Most other
countries have removed criminal defamation as a crime from their law books. The result is that in
India, not only does a publisher face the threat of having to pay stiff monetary penalties in case
he/she defames, someone, there is the bigger threat of being imprisoned for defamation.
Defamation : Defamation is a legal wrong emerging from an act of injuring a persons
reputation and sullying his or her character without lawful justification or excuse
Criminal Defamation section 499 ,500 of IPC act provide for the criminal defamation with
jail sentence of 2 years
Sections 499-500 of the IPC are vestiges from Indias colonial past that are not appropriate for a
modern democracy
Freedom of Speech -19(1)
Reasonable restrictions

sovereignty and integrity of India,

security of the state,
friendly relations with foreign states,
public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence

Defamation only restriction protects private interests ,remaining all restrictions in the interest
of public
Why in news ?

Petition in SC for the decriminalizing the Defamation

Recently defamation cases like Kejriwal,Rahul Gandhi

SC : Criminal Defamation has chilling effects on Free speech

Centre :

it was part of the states compelling interest to protect the dignity and reputation of its
citizens,
online speech could not be adequately countered without the possibility of such
punishment.
those accused of defamation may not have the financial wherewithal to pay damages, and
that civil remedies typically take longer than criminal ones.(if made only civil
defamation)

Centre sought the views of Law Commission

Why defamation should be decriminalized

In order to be reasonable, the Supreme Court has laid down that a restriction must be
narrowly tailored or narrowly interpreted so as to abridge or restrict only what is
absolutely necessary.- which means the law should be very narrow and it should not
vague to go beyond what is required.
Section 499 and 500 do not constitute Reasonable Restrictions as even truth is not a
defence. Even if a person has spoken the truth, he can be prosecuted for defamation.
Under the first exception to section 499, truth will only be a defence if the statement was
made for the public good, which is a question of fact to be assessed by the court. This is
an arbitrary and over-broad rule that deters people from making statements regarding
politicians or political events even which they know to be true because they run the risk
of a court not finding the statement to be for the public good.
Second, a person can be prosecuted under section 499 even if he or she has not made any
verbal or written statement at all. In a particular case, a magistrate has issued criminal
process on the mere allegation that the defendant conspired with the person who actually
made the allegedly defamatory written statement. Thus section 499 is used to settle
business scores as even companies can be prosecuted for criminal defamation on the wily
theory that they conspired to defame the plaintiff.
Fourth, even an ironical statement can amount to defamation
A joint consultation paper published by the Law Commission has noted that the
respondents overwhelmingly expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of
defamation law.
A journalist has no special status under defamation laws in India and faces unreasonable
pressure from those in power, particularly for critical reportage. Criminal defamation is
often used as a tool by people in positions of power to muzzle the press.
The UN's special rapporteur for freedom of expression in a report to the UN human rights
council in 2010 had asserted that "any attempt to criminalise freedom of expression as a
means to limiting or censuring that freedom must be resisted".
Criminal defamation should not be allowed to be an instrument in the hands of the state,
especially when the Code of Criminal Procedure gives public servants an unfair
advantage by allowing the states prosecutors to stand in for them when they claim to
have been defamed by the media or political opponents.

What now

Section 66A was struck down

Next is Blasphemy Law /Hate speech - Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts,
intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious
beliefs(Wendy Dongier and Perumal Murugan)