CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

In India defamation is civil as well as a criminal offence. The history of defamation signifies
the importance of reputation in maintaining public order and peace. Defamation was strictly
criminalized that even the defense of truth for bona fide reasons were not accepted until the
19th century under common law.

Section 499 and 500 in Indian Penal Code criminalizes defamation. Accordingly, 499.
specify the ingredients constituting criminal defamation. Thus, to constitute criminal offence
publishing of an imputation directing to a person with an intention to cause harm to
reputation by words signs or visible representations should be made. Section 500 states
punishment for defamation—Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Moreover in the case named S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Anr. held that there should
be some intention to cause harm to the reputation and should be directed towards a person or
a group of people. Here the actress Khushboo just endorsed women choice of pre-marital sex
in her interview which was not directed to anyone. It thus lacked mens rea and actus reus.
The basic ingredient of defamation is directing it towards a person was highlighted with the
support of an English case named Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. Hence words
complained of should be published "of the complainant/plaintiff". Where he is not named, the
test would be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to the
conclusion that he was the person referred to. The allegation in the above mentioned Indian
case that it harmed the reputation of the Tamilian women was held wrong as the appellant did
not specifically mention or directed her saying to the Tamil women.

Further many PILs have been filed questioning the constitutionality of criminal defamation as
it violates Article 19 (1)(a), the supreme court has still favored in its constitutionality. The
reasons for its constitutionality being that

[1] The term defamation is stated as an exception in regards with public interest in Article
19(2). Making it a crime will ensure the term defamation abetment with public interest
because in a crime an individual has suffered but the criminal case will be regarded as against
the public interest.
[2]Criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on Article 19
[3]Right to dignity is a right under Article 21.
Moreover, the author feels that criminal defamation is a way for harmonious enforcement of
both the articles 19 and 21. As being a pre-constitutional law and having no unavoidable
circumstances which will hinder the right of Article 19, will constitute a reasonable
restriction and protect the right of dignity under Article 21. Thus section 499 and 500 of IPC
fulfill their aim in an harmonious and just way.