Defamation is a civil illicit and criminal offence which occurs when a person makes a fallacious statement about another person that harms their reputation. Recently, a defamation case was filed against Rahul Gandhi, the former President of the Indian National Congress party,by a BJP member for his remark, “Why do all thieves have the surname Modi?” in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his so-called oligarchs. However, Mr Gandhi and his lawyer profess that the statement was baseless and made with malicious intent. This brings us to the question of understanding the constitutional validity of the case.
In India, defamation is governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, deal with cases of criminal defamation.
According to the books, Section 499 of the IPC defines defamation as “whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”
Section 500 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for defamation, which is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
In order to understand what constitutes slander, Section 499 provides the following four explanations:
Defamation of the dead: The Section addresses the offence of libel against a deceased person as well, so long as the imputation is both painful to the deceased and to the deceased’s family.
Defamation of a company or collection of persons: An offence of defamation against any corporation could be made out when the words accuse it of mismanagement or fraud in its dealings.
Defamation by innuendo: Sometimes the words in their literal sense appear to be non-defamatory, but there is hidden sarcasm which intends to harm the reputation. This also constitutes defamation.
Meaning of harming reputation: According to Section 499’s Explanation 4, it means to degrade a person’s morals or intelligence. Additionally, it would be illegal to damage someone’s reputation by labelling them as being from a lower caste or diminishing their credit.
Defamatory actions fall into one of two categories: LIBEL (permanent defamation done through publication or text) OR SLANDER (permanent defamation done through speech). Under Sections 500, 501 and 502 spell out the punishment for the offence of defamation. According to these provisions, the following offences are punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both:
Slandering third party.
Printing or etching of libellous material.
Sale of printed or engraved substances containing defamatory matter.
However,there are certain exceptions under section 499 which allows people to speak, write or publish. Here are some to give you broader prespective.
Listed below are some of the exceptions :
1. Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
2. Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
3. Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
4. Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
5. Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
6. Merits of public performance.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
7.Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
9. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
10. Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
The journey of defamation cases has been a long one.In year 1837, Lord Macaualy realised the defamation case in India. It is understood that the reason behind criminalisation of defamation was to simply to protect british rulers. In the 76 years of independence, there has been many landmark judgements in the history of defamation cases but the question of constitutional validity still remains debatable.Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2), which includes defamation.
The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to free speech and expression is not absolute and must be balanced with the right to reputation. In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that “the right to reputation is an integral part of the right to dignity of an individual” and that defamation is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.Therefore, while the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is not an unfettered one. The law recognizes that an individual’s right to reputation must be protected, and therefore, defamation is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech and expression.
In conclusion, the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi for his remark, “Why all thieves have surname Modi?” is legally valid under the Indian Penal Code. Defamation is a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the law recognizes that an individual’s right to reputation must be protected. However, the constitutional validity of the case is subject to interpretation, and it remains a matter of debate.