Technoglitch
Core Member
Noting that it is “extremely difficult to accept that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression”, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code to protect the individual's right to reputation.
“Right to free speech is not absolute. Reputation cannot be crucified at the altar of freedom of speech and expression,” a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant observed in their judgment.
The apex court held that courts have to strike a balance between the fundamental right free speech as well as the right to reputation which is equivalent to the fundamental right to dignity and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Free speech is sacrosanct. But right to life under Article 21 has its own significance as protection of individual rights form the fulcrum of a society. Courts have to strike a balance,” the Supreme Court reasoned.
The judgment, authored by Justice Misra, said free speech should not rob a person's individual right to go to court to protect his reputation.
The apex court held that Sections 499 and 500 provide the State ammunition to do its sworn duty to protect the dignity and reputation of its citizens.
The petitioners had argued that the colonial Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC was an affront to article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
They had asked whether criminal defamation, which makes a person liable to prosecution and penal punishment, was necessary when defamation is considered a civil offence by countries across the world.
“We are not like other countries. Here you can file a civil suit and it will drag on for another 20 years. Nobody cares. In criminal defamation, there is some deterrence,” the Centre had replied in an affidavit before the Supreme Court.
Criminal defamation does not have chilling effect on free speech: SC - The Hindu
“Right to free speech is not absolute. Reputation cannot be crucified at the altar of freedom of speech and expression,” a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant observed in their judgment.
The apex court held that courts have to strike a balance between the fundamental right free speech as well as the right to reputation which is equivalent to the fundamental right to dignity and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Free speech is sacrosanct. But right to life under Article 21 has its own significance as protection of individual rights form the fulcrum of a society. Courts have to strike a balance,” the Supreme Court reasoned.
The judgment, authored by Justice Misra, said free speech should not rob a person's individual right to go to court to protect his reputation.
The apex court held that Sections 499 and 500 provide the State ammunition to do its sworn duty to protect the dignity and reputation of its citizens.
The petitioners had argued that the colonial Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC was an affront to article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
They had asked whether criminal defamation, which makes a person liable to prosecution and penal punishment, was necessary when defamation is considered a civil offence by countries across the world.
“We are not like other countries. Here you can file a civil suit and it will drag on for another 20 years. Nobody cares. In criminal defamation, there is some deterrence,” the Centre had replied in an affidavit before the Supreme Court.
Criminal defamation does not have chilling effect on free speech: SC - The Hindu
