DEFAMATION - POLITY
News: Rahul
Gandhi disqualified as MP; Congress calls it ‘black day’ for democracy
What's in the news?
● A
day after the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Surat convicted former
Congress president Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case over his Modi
surname remark, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a notification to disqualify
Mr. Gandhi as the Lok Sabha member from Wayanad.
Key takeaways:
● Surat
court found him guilty of criminal defamation for his comment “why all thieves
have Modi surname”. Mr. Gandhi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
● He
was disqualified the very next day, on March 24, on the basis of a 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court in Lily
Thomas versus Union of India.
○ This
judgment had laid down that a prison
sentence of not less than two years would attract the immediate
disqualification of a lawmaker under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
● It
said the ‘automatic disqualification’
operates like a blanket ban. It does not distinguish between bailable and
non-bailable or cognisable and non-cognisable offences categorised by the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
Lily Thomas case:
● In
the Lily Thomas case (2013), the Supreme Court dismissed Section 8(4) of the RP
Act, which allowed a legislator who had been convicted of an offence to
continue serving on the basis that an appeal had been submitted within three
months of the conviction.
Defamation:
● Defamation
is a wrong that deals with damage caused
to a person’s reputation.
● In
India, defamation can both be a civil
wrong and a criminal offense, depending on the objective they seek to
achieve.
Legal Provisions:
Section 499 of the IPC:
● It
defines what amounts to criminal
defamation and subsequent provisions define its punishment.
● It
elaborates on how defamation could be through words – spoken or intended to be
read, through signs, and also through visible representations.
● These
can either be published or spoken about a person with the intention of damaging
the reputation of that person, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that
the imputation will harm his reputation.
Section 500 of the IPC:
● It
prescribes for defamation a simple imprisonment for a “term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with
both.”
Criminal Defamation:
● Criminal
defamation is a type of crime where a person makes a false statement about
someone else that harms their reputation and does so intentionally or with
reckless disregard for the truth. This false statement must be communicated to
others, either in writing or verbally.
Need for Criminal Defamation in India:
1. Protecting Reputation:
● Defamation
laws, including criminal defamation, exist to protect the reputation of
individuals from false and baseless
attacks that can cause significant harm to their personal and professional
life.
2. Deterrence against false news:
● Criminalizing
defamation serves as a deterrent against people who might want to spread false
information and rumours with malicious intent.
3. Preventing public disorder:
● Defamation
laws can prevent public disorder by ensuring that false information doesn’t
incite violence or cause unrest.
4. Fairness:
● Defamation
laws provide a legal remedy for individuals who have been defamed, allowing
them to seek justice and clear their name.
5. Promoting social cohesion:
● Defamation
laws promote social cohesion by maintaining social norms and moral values that
support the peaceful coexistence of different groups in society.
Challenges with Criminal Defamation:
1. Effect on free speech:
● The
use of criminal defamation laws can have a chilling effect on free speech, as
individuals may be hesitant to express
their opinions or criticisms for fear of being accused of defamation.
2. Misuse of laws:
● Criminal
defamation laws can also be misused by
powerful individuals or institutions to silence their critics and suppress
dissent.
3. Delayed justice:
● Criminal
defamation cases can take a long time to resolve in India’s overburdened court
system. This can lead to delayed justice and harm to the reputations of those
involved.
4. Burden of proof:
● The
burden of proof in criminal defamation cases lies with the accused, which can make it difficult to defend oneself
against false allegations.
5. Vagueness of laws:
● The
provisions of criminal defamation laws in India, including what constitutes a
“public setting” and the scope of the defences available to the accused, can be
vague and open to interpretation.
WAY FORWARD:
1. Repealing or amending criminal defamation laws:
● Repeal
or significantly amend Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
which currently criminalize defamation and provide for imprisonment and fines
as punishment.
● This
could include redefining what
constitutes defamation or limiting the scope of criminal penalties.
2. Promoting alternative dispute resolution:
● Encouraging
parties to resolve defamation disputes through alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, such as mediation or arbitration, could help reduce the burden on
the court system and provide a quicker resolution for all parties
involved.
3. Providing clearer guidance on interpretation:
● Providing
clearer guidance on the interpretation of criminal defamation laws could help
to reduce the vagueness of the
provisions and ensure a more consistent application of the laws.
4. Increasing awareness and education:
● Increasing
awareness and education on the consequences of defamation, both for the accused
and the victim, could help to reduce the incidence of defamation and promote more responsible speech.
5. Improving the legal process:
● Improving
the legal process for criminal defamation cases, such as by reducing delays and
ensuring a fair trial, could help to
promote justice and protect the rights of all parties involved.
6. Promote media literacy and ethical journalism
practices:
● It
will help to reduce the incidence of false or defamatory reporting.
7. Engage in dialogue:
● Engage
in dialogue with civil society groups,
legal experts, and media professionals to ensure that any reforms to
defamation law reflect the interests and values of the Indian people.
The
Supreme Court declared that the
right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) had to be “balanced” against the right to “reputation” under Article 21.