Headlines
SC to examine if penal provisions on criminal defamation valid
New Delhi, July 8
The Supreme Court on
Wednesday said that it would examine the constitutional validity of the
Indian Penal Code's sections 499 and 500 providing for criminal
defamation, even as the central government defended the penal
provisions.
As a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice
Prafulla C. Pant took up a batch of petitions questioning the
constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of IPC, Attorney General
Mukul Rohatgi contended they were required as a "deterrent" to
irresponsible speech.
His contention came as the court heard a
batch of petitions including by Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi,
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Bharatiya Janata Party leader
Subramanian Swamy seeking that sections 499 (defamation) and 500
(punishment for defamation) and section 199(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code be declared unconstitutional.
Rohatgi told the court unlike
Britain where such cases are decided very fast, in India, it takes 10
to 20 years to decide them and there were sufficient safeguards in
constitutions's article 19(2) imposing reasonable restrictions of the
right to free expression and speech guaranteed under article 19.
The
restrictions include in the interest of sovereignty, integrity and
security of the country, friendly relations with foreign countries,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
Addressing the plea by
Rohatgi and amicus curiae T.R. Andhyarujina that the matter be referred
to the larger bench as challenge to the two IPC sections was in the
context of article 19(2), the court said: "In our considered opinion,
the said facet shall be addressed to and dealt with while dealing with
the merits of the case."
To the submission by the petitioner's
lawyers that criminal defamation has been done away in many countries,
it said: "Be it noted, a contention has been raised that in number of
countries, criminal defamation has been abolished. The question, thus,
emerges whether abolition of such a criminal action in other countries
can really have any impact or effect when this court adjudges or decides
the constitutional validity of a statutory provision, regard being had
to our written, controlled and organic constitution."
Directing the hearing of the matter on July 14, the court asked the central government to respond to the pleas by July 11.
Gandhi
has challenged validity of the penal provisions in the wake of criminal
defamation suit filed against him for his speech about the RSS and the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on March 6 last year, while the Tamil
Nadu government filed criminal defamation against Swamy for making
comments critical of the then chief minister J.Jayalalithaa.
Senior
counsel Amit Sibal initiated criminal defamation against Kejriwal and
other Aam Aadmi Party leaders for alleging conflict of interest as he
had appeared in the Supreme Court for telecom firm Vodafone while his
father Kapil Sibal was communications minister.
Originally the apex court was moved by Swamy contending that sections 499 and 500 provided travelled beyond article 19(2).