Context:
The Supreme Court restrained a trial court from proceeding with a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister for retweeting a YouTube video against the BJP’s IT cell.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Defamation under Indian Law
- Supreme Court Verdicts on Defamation and Free Speech
- Recent Case: Delhi CM’s Defamation Challenge
Defamation under Indian Law
Definition and Classification
- Civil Defamation:
- Can be libel (written) or slander (spoken), governed by tort law.
- Results in financial compensation; damages computed based on probabilities.
- Criminal Defamation (Section 499 IPC):
- Involves making or publishing imputations intending to harm a person’s reputation.
- Punishable with up to two years’ imprisonment or fine, or both (Section 500 IPC).
Supreme Court Verdicts on Defamation and Free Speech
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016):
- Upheld constitutionality of IPC Sections 499 and 500.
- Recognized the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Considered criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression under Article 19(2).
Kaushal Kishore vs. Union of India (2017):
- Ruled against imposing additional restrictions on free speech beyond those specified in Article 19(2).
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015):
- Quashed Section 66A of the IT Act 2000, which criminalized sending offensive messages.
- Found the provision ambiguous and violative of Article 19(1)(a), not saved under Article 19(2).
Implications
- Protection of Reputation:
- Civil and criminal defamation laws safeguard individuals’ reputations against false and harmful statements.
- Balancing Freedom of Expression:
- Courts balance the right to free speech with the need to protect individuals from defamation, considering constitutional provisions and precedents.
- Legal Clarity and Ambiguity:
- Supreme Court rulings aim to provide clarity on the scope and limitations of defamation laws, ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.
Recent Case: Delhi CM’s Defamation Challenge
- Issue: Delhi CM challenged a Delhi HC order upholding summons in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video in 2018.
- HC Observation:
- Retweeting defamatory content implies endorsement, attracting liability under Section 499 IPC.
- CM’s wide social media following amplifies the reach, making retweet a form of public endorsement.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Interpretation of Retweeting:
- SC ruled that retweeting does not always imply endorsement.
- Retweeting may not necessarily reflect the retweeter’s own views or endorsement of the content.
-Source: Indian Express
