Free speech and a free press are essential components of a vibrant democracy and it is sad that this aspect has not received due attention or consideration from the Supreme Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the colonial law on criminal defamation (Editorial and “SC upholds law on criminal defamation”, both May 14). Nobody is against dealing with defamation (libel or slander) as a civil wrong and taking remedial action, but its criminalisation with a two-year jail stint will only shackle public-spirited activists, intellectuals, investigative journalists and whistle-blowers who are needed to speak the truth to those in power.
ADVERTISEMENT
G. David Milton,Maruthancode, Tamil Nadu
Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Kamaraj and even Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke carefully and gently without offending sensibilities. But not so the leaders of today. Have we forgotten how a Chief Minister had no qualms about calling the Prime Minister a “coward and psychopath”? It is in such a context that the top court’s ruling comes as a godsend. Unbridled freedom of speech without reasonable restrictions will stymie democracy. However, courts will have to walk a tightrope. They must carefully weigh the pros and cons of derogatory statements made by individuals or institutions before issuing summons.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Though the Supreme Court has become a source of hope for the common man with its path-breaking judgments in many instances, its verdict on defamation has come as a bolt from the blue. It is unfortunate that the honourable court could not deem it appropriate to consider the spirit of the exhortations of many politicians and media associations who have come together — which itself is a rare occurrence — to question the validity of the impugned provisions of the relevant sections. I am sure that courts will now be flooded with complaints, many of them frivolous.
Betha Harish,Mangaluru
There is now growing predilection by politicians and public figures to cast aspersions on their opponents based on unverified information and which a section of the media then gives wide publicity to without checking the source and veracity of the information. The offence should be treated as a criminal one because the intangible loss of reputation from irresponsible accusations is too high to be compensated by the slow-as-snail pace of civil suits and damages. The remedy for abuse of these provisions is to amend the two sections by giving a more precise meaning to defamation and making frivolous litigation a criminal offence too.
Y.G. Chouksey,Pune
Wilful defamation is an assault on the character of a person. The person who has been defamed has to get quick justice especially as cases drag on for a long time. The judgment will have a salutary effect on persons making mischievous statements and indulging in scurrilous writings.
M.K.B. Nambiar,Palloor, Mahe
We must remember that “if character is lost, everything is lost”. I support the verdict. Social media is an example where one can get away scot-free by casting all kinds of caustic aspersions on public figures. The personal lives of celebrities are callously invaded and the comments made against them often border on calumny. There has to be an end to this.
Shivani L. Shenoy,Udupi, Karnataka