Why in News: SC ruling (Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, 2016): Upheld criminal defamation, linking reputation with Article 21.
Recent concern (2025): Justice M.M. Sundresh flagged its misuse to silence criticism.
Issues with Criminal Defamation
1. Disproportionate penalty: Jail term for reputational harm is excessive.
2. Tool of intimidation: Used by politicians and private actors to deter dissent.
3. Mechanical summons: Lower courts issue notices without filtering frivolous complaints.
4. Chilling effect: Journalists, especially in small towns, self-censor due to harassment.
5. Political misuse: Leaders use it as litigation warfare, diverting focus from governance.
Arguments for Reform
1. Proportionality principle: Reputation can be protected without criminal sanction.
2. Civil remedies effective: Damages, injunctions, and retractions address reputational injury.
3. Prevents misuse: Civil route reduces scope for harassment through vexatious litigation.
4. Global practice: Democracies like the U.K. and U.S. treat defamation only as a civil wrong.
5. Strengthens democracy: Ensures free debate, criticism, and accountability without fear of imprisonment.
Way Forward
1. Decriminalise defamation: Retain only civil liability in line with global standards.
2. Judicial safeguards: Higher scrutiny before issuing summons in defamation cases.
3. Media protection: Guidelines to prevent harassment of journalists and whistleblowers.
4. Legal reforms: Time-bound disposal of civil defamation suits to ensure quick relief.
5. Awareness and ethics: Promote responsible speech, ethical journalism, and self-regulation.
Conclusion: Criminal defamation is incompatible with democratic debate. India must shift to proportionate civil remedies to balance free expression with dignity.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II (Polity & Governance): Fundamental Rights, Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), reasonable restrictions, Article 21 (Right to Life & Reputation).
Mains Practice Question
Q. “Criminal defamation in India has become a tool of intimidation, incompatible with the spirit of democratic debate. Critically examine the issues and suggest reforms to strike a balance between free speech and protection of reputation.” (250 words)