Subramaniam Swamy v.

Union of India
[W.P. (Crl) 184 of 2014]
by sflc_admin | July 8, 2015
Subramaniam Swamy, petitioner, is a politician from the State of Tamil Nadu. The
petitioner has challenged provisions of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize defamation
in India, namely Section 499 (defines defamation\l " 1) and Section 500 (provides
punishment for the offense\l "2) before the Supreme Court of India. The petition also
challenges Section 199(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that a Court
may take cognizance of an offense relating to defamation on a mere complaint made by a
public prosecutor when an offense is alleged to have been committed against the
President of India, the Vice- President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator
of a Union Territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union Territory, or
any public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in
respect of his conduct in the discharged of his public functions. According to the
petitioner these provisions cast an unreasonable restriction on free speech, one that falls
beyond Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner submits that in a democratic body polity, public opinion, public perception
and public criticism, are the three fundamental pillars to guide and control the Executive
action and, if they are scuttled or fettered or bound by launching criminal prosecution, it
would affect the growth of a healthy and matured democracy. The petitioner further
submits that fundamental rights of liberty and free speech are controlled and not absolute
as per the Constitution, but in the name of control the freedom of speech that pertains to
criticism of certain governmental actions cannot be gagged.\l " 3 It is the contention of the
petitioner that the Executive does not permit expression of public opinion, by instituting
cases of defamation through the public prosecutors by spending the sum from the State
exchequer which is inconceivable.
The matter, which is being heard by a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Uday
Umesh Lalit, is currently pending counter comments from the respondents side.
However, at the hearing, Mr. Narsimha the Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of State of Tamil Nadu submitted that Sections 499 and 500 could not be said to
travel beyond reasonable limits on free speech, because Article 19(2) itself imposes such
a restriction.\l "4 Senior Counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, who has been appointed as amicus
curiae in this petition submitted that there has to be a debate with regard to the conceptual
meaning of the term defamation used in Article 19(2) of the Constitution and
defamation in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Further Senior Counsel K.
Parasaran, who has also been requested to assist the Court pointed out that the freedom of
speech and expression has to be a controlled one and does not include the concept of
defamation as defined under Section 499.\l "5
Apart from Subramaniam Swamy vs. Union of India, 18 other petitions have been filed
seeking quash criminal provisions for defamation, including those of Chief Minister
Arvind Kejriwal, Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, DMDK Leader Vijaykanth. All
of these petitions, which are being heard together, were listed before the SC on 8 th of July
2015. At the hearing Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi suggested that the petitions be
heard before a Constitutional Bench for consideration under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. While Senior Counsel T.R. Andhyarujina supported the Attorney Generals
suggestion, the Bench objected to it. Justice Dipak Mishra referred to judgments in the
Naz Foundation case and Shreya Singhals case, which were delivered by two judge
benches and asked the Attorney General why every case requiring an interpretation of the
law must be referred to a Constitutional bench. The Bench further stated that several
petitions had cited a number of countries where criminal defamation has been abolished.
This raises the question whether abolition of criminal action in other countries can really
have effect when the court decides on the constitutional validity of a provision, regard
being had to Indias own written and organic constitution. Attorney General Rohatgi
pointed out We are not like other countries. Here you can file a suit and it will drag on
for another 20 years. Nobody cares. In criminal defamation, there is some deterrence. In
countries like the UK civil action is more onerous than criminal action. However Senior
Counsel T.R. Andhyarujina countered the Attorney General stating There is no doubt
criminal defamation deters people from practicing freedom of speech and expression. A
number of persons, mostly politicians are facing criminal proceedings for making
statements against their opponents. The government has been given three days to file its
response and the case has been scheduled for the 14th of July 2015.
javascript:void(0)
javascript:void(0)

Defamation Law Contested By Rahul

Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal Remains
Cheat Sheet | Reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Shuchi Shukla | Updated: May 15,
2016 21:22 IST
https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:
by Taboola https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:
Sponsored Links https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:
https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:https://popup.taboola.com/en/?
template=colorbox&utm_source=ndtv&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=text-links-
b:Above Article Text Links - NDTV:Sponsored
Hitler's Final Bunker Discovered, Wait Till You See Inside (Trend Chaser)
Watch the story of Ted & his search for love. 1st Month Free (Hotstar)
http://tk.vltracker.com/?flux_fts=qtaex38591&flux_cost=0.0&campaign=%7Bcampaign
%7D&publisher=ndtv&ad=CITI+Bank+Credit+Card
%2C+One+Card+For+All+Your+Needs%21+Apply+Now&creative=http%3A%2F
%2Fcdn.taboola.com%2Flibtrc%2Fstatic%2Fthumbnails
%2F69c46fb0d05a1f046b7aa779a97dcc08.jpg&campaign_id=729276&campaign_item_i
d=52328047&time=2017-10-
07+08%3A06%3A55&platform=Desktop&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral
http://tk.vltracker.com/?flux_fts=cpolozpolzliiolxoex11e55&flux_cost=0.01&campaign=
%7Bcampaign%7D&publisher=ndtv&ad=Click+To+Check+Your+Credit+Score+Now
%21+Its+Free%21&creative=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.taboola.com%2Flibtrc%2Fstatic
%2Fthumbnails
%2F9f22a974b650cb5c9223099cecd3ad80.jpg&campaign_id=716024&campaign_item_
id=51431867&time=2017-10-
07+08%3A06%3A55&platform=Desktop&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral
https://milaap.org/stories/secureherfuture?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral
243
Sharesjavascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascrip
t:void(0);
javascript:void(0);EMAIL
javascript:void(0);PRINT
44COMMENTS

C lic k to P la y

javascript:void(0) javascript:void(0)
Supreme Court today upheld the validity of criminal defamation law challenged by the
likes of Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Subramanian Swamy.

javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0);
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that politicians like Congress vice-president
Rahul Gandhi and the BJP's Subramanian Swamy, who have been sued for criminal
defamation, will have to face trial in the cases against them.
Here are the latest developments:
1. The court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, which
were challenged by Mr Gandhi, Mr Swamy, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal
and other politicians and journalists through separate petitions.
 2. But in its order it has stayed cases of criminal defamation against the petitioners
for eight weeks to allow them to challenge the suits in a high court. The Supreme
Court said magistrates must be careful while issuing summons in such cases.
3. "We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights to freedom of speech
and the reputation of an individual," the court said, and added that it was "difficult
to say that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and
expression".
4. "The right of reputation under Article 21 of Constitution cannot be allowed to be
crucified at the altar of freedom of speech," the court observed, holding that no
individual can be allowed to sully another's reputation.
5. Saying the judgement is not entirely disappointing, Mr Swamy today said, "The
court has now provided sufficient safeguards for politicians to be unable to use or
misuse the law, to me it's an 80 per cent success. I can always go to constitutional
bench and challenge the same thing if there is no improvement in situation."
6. The petitioners had argued that sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code or
IPC, which provide for criminal defamation, are not needed as the Constitution
imposes reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression.
7. The law, they alleged, has been misused by politicians to gag rivals and the
media. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has filed around 130 defamation
cases against her political rivals in the state.
8. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had first approached the top court challenging
the defamation laws, after the J Jayalalithaa government filed a number of cases
against him.
9. The Centre and various state governments argued that these provisions in the law
must be retained as they deter people from maligning the reputation of others.
They pleaded that scrapping defamation laws would lead to anarchy, with no
check on what people say about others.
10. The Indian Penal Code makes defamation an offence punishable by up to a two-
year jail term. Verdict was reserved in August last year, after a Supreme Court
bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant heard the matter spread
over a month.
https://www.ndtv.com/cheat-sheet/supreme-court-to-pronounce-verdict-on-pleas-challenging-
criminal-defamation-1405795

https://sflc.in/subramaniam-swamy-v-union-of-india-w-p-crl-184-of-2014/

https://netjrfmasscomm.blogspot.in/2010/04/what-is-defamation-what-are-provisions.html

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/india-defamation-laws/