Defamation Law Constitutionally Valid: SC
Defamation Law Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court Explanation
Defamation law in India has always been a balance between two important constitutional values:
Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
Right to Reputation as part of Right to Life & Dignity (Article 21)
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code), stating that protecting an individual’s reputation is as important as protecting free speech.
Key Supreme Court Case
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
Several petitions challenged criminal defamation, arguing it violated the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Petitioners said defamation should be treated only as a civil wrong (compensation in damages), not a criminal offence (punishment with imprisonment).
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court upheld the law and rejected the challenge.
It observed that freedom of speech is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions can be placed in the interests of:
sovereignty and integrity of India
security of the State
public order
decency or morality
contempt of court
defamation
incitement to offence
Thus, defamation is expressly mentioned as a ground for restricting free speech.
Court’s Reasoning
Reputation is a Fundamental Right
The Court held that the right to reputation is protected under Article 21 (Right to Life).
No one has a fundamental right to defame others under the guise of free speech.
Balancing of Rights
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech.
Article 21 protects the dignity and reputation of an individual.
The Court emphasized the doctrine of “balancing of rights” – one person’s freedom of expression ends where another’s right to reputation begins.
Public Interest Consideration
Criminal defamation acts as a safeguard for individuals against malicious attacks on their character, especially in a society where reputation is considered a person’s most valuable asset.
Not an Unreasonable Restriction
The Court said criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
It prevents misuse of free speech for destructive purposes.
Supporting Case Laws
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983)
The Court held that reputation is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003)
Reiterated that criminal defamation is not unconstitutional and serves the public interest.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
Landmark judgment where a two-judge bench (Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant) upheld Sections 499 & 500 IPC as valid.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Article / Principle | Court’s View |
|---|---|---|
| Free Speech | Article 19(1)(a) | Not absolute; subject to restrictions |
| Restriction on Free Speech | Article 19(2) | Defamation is a valid ground |
| Right to Reputation | Article 21 | Part of Right to Life & Dignity |
| Balancing of Rights | 19(1)(a) vs. 21 | Both must coexist without one destroying the other |
| Key Case | Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) | Criminal defamation is constitutionally valid |
✅ Final Position:
The Supreme Court has made it clear that defamation laws (civil and criminal) are constitutionally valid because they strike a balance between individual freedom of speech and the right to reputation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments