A question of power

SC judgment on criminal defamation ignores the fact that the parties involved in defamation complaints are rarely equals.

Written by Chinmayi Arun | Published:May 25, 2016 12:01 am
defamation, criminal defamation, criminal defamation law, defamation law, supreme court, criminal defamation case, india news The Supreme Court

Disappointing as the Supreme Court’s judgment on criminal defamation is, it is not a big surprise. It is not hard to imagine that a country that retains and uses anachronistic sedition and contempt of court laws will choose to retain defamation as well. Unlike sedition or contempt of court, which by definition punish speech against powerful state institutions, defamation law is, at least in theory, available to everyone.

The judgment gives rise to a few obvious free speech concerns. One is that it is unnecessary and disproportionate to criminalise defamation when a civil remedy exists for defamation. Another is that criminal defamation law, especially given that it punishes even truth-telling unless it is for the public good, will lead to a chilling effect on speech.

The judgment, however, raises other questions. The first of these is whether the government and the SC will take inconsistent stands about the right to reputation in the context of defamation and privacy. The second is whether it is possible to have any worthwhile conversation about defamation without taking into account questions of power: Can we treat the defamation of and by prominent politicians, big media houses and enormously rich companies exactly the same way as we treat the defamation of and by individual journalists, penniless activists or young students?

On the question of the right to reputation — the SC judgment insists that the right to reputation is so deeply embedded within the right to life, that criminal action by the state is necessary to protect individuals’ reputation. It is only recently that we have taken to describing certain kinds of invasiveness as violations of privacy in India. Take the examples used by the court to explain why even truthful statements may be defamatory: imputations of alcoholism, consensual incest, impotence or illegitimacy are seen by the court to be situations in which truth should not apply as a defence to defamation. The court also used the example of rape survivors and people suffering from AIDS to highlight that there are truths about people that they might legitimate wish to keep private. A privacy law would cover all this and would do so more effectively.

A landmark privacy case Mr X v Hospital Z is cited in the judgment in support of the apex court’s reasoning. In Mr X v Hospital Z, the SC recognised the right to privacy as a part of the right to life in the context of an AIDS patient. The use of this case is somewhat at odds with the government and SC’s bizarre choice to re-examine whether a right to privacy is a fundamental right. Imagine if the court’s reasoning about reputation were applied to the right to privacy — it would mean citizens can seek remedies when the state disrespects their right to reputation.

Criminal defamation was the paternalistic remedy offered by the pre-democratic state to protect reputations whenever it saw fit. There has been enough criticism of the criminal justice system for it to be clear that it is difficult for the average citizen to register a criminal complaint and participate in the prosecution process.

This brings us to the second interesting issue — the question of power. Big media regularly attacks powerless people. In 2013, several Andhra Pradesh news channels slut-shamed female law students who had just emerged from a party celebrating their graduation. Most university students do not have the resources to stand their ground and might find such an attack cripples their careers and the rest of their lives. If their right to reputation matters, they need a remedy that they can easily access. The Leveson inquiry in the UK deliberated on questions like this. It is not clear that criminal defamation helps in these cases since it depends on the police choosing to be helpful to the victims. In the context of rape and domestic violence, the system has failed disempowered victims.

These questions of power are important not only to understand the disproportionate impact of defamation. They are also important when considering remedies for defamation. Defamation law is not used exclusively by the disempowered against the powerful. It is used by large companies to silence journalists who speak truth to power. It is used by powerful people to send legal notices to publishing houses, television channels and authors, threatening them with criminal complaints and extortionate amounts in damages. The average citizen has no access to this system and no funds to pay lawyers to harass those who sully her reputation. This begs the question of whose reputation we refer to when we say the right to reputation is a fundamental right. If it really is a fundamental right, its enforcement must be made more accessible to people without resources and it should be available against the government.

It is evident from the narrative above, that the defamation question is complicated. The SC acknowledged correctly that there are at least two sets of rights involved here. It, however, completely ignored the fact that the parties involved in defamation complaint are rarely equals.

The judgment was disappointing not just in the manner in which it was written but in its lack of nuance. The silver lining is that if the court values the right to reputation so much, it may mean that our right to privacy will survive.

The writer is executive director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi, and faculty associate of the Berkman Centre at Harvard University.

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. K
    K SHESHU
    May 25, 2016 at 11:41 am
    Courts have favoured the rich and the influential. The large number of prisoners having no access to justice and few who are absolved of all charges though there are prima facie evidence to contrary, testify to the arguement. Rightly said.
    Reply
    1. A
      Ashok Kriplani
      May 25, 2016 at 10:08 pm
      SC is for elites only as it has virtually no time for poor in criminal cases. The SC judges take up the cases generally tired. Seldom 2-judge bench differ so why the public is allowing 2-judge bench: sheer wastage of resources. lt;br/gt;Not only SC but its registry is marred by corruption. It is strange that in this context DHC take prompt action against its registry than the SC when a complaint is made against a Registrar and like.lt;br/gt;So where a Nation walks corruption, inhales corruption, eats corruption, talks corruption but does not act against the corrupt elites, it is for elite corrupt with all other modern slaves and that is why it is destined to doom.
      Reply
      1. C
        Col S
        May 25, 2016 at 2:21 am
        This is the root cause of rampant corruption and scams.Once in position,i t is ABUSED for pecuniary gains. Threatened by this law peopl have to LUMP CORUPTION and scam.lt;br/gt;Cheers for the SC Verdict.CORRUPT and SCAMS growing EVERY DAY
        Reply
        1. K
          Kirit
          May 25, 2016 at 12:09 pm
          Another nutcase advocating verbal ualt and verbal abuse as free speech. In any thing, court should give heavy fine to those people so India is decent, cohesive and civilized place. Author is western mole.
          Reply
          1. M
            mmsahu
            May 24, 2016 at 11:38 pm
            unnecessary noise is made by so called educated people.it does not affect in any way to common man who can not afford to go to court for such silly matters. it is only encouraging chaos in many insutions apex court judgement will help to curb loose talk by people.
            Reply
            1. N
              Niladrinath Mohanty
              May 25, 2016 at 2:35 am
              I agree with the judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court. Sometimes the State or its arms also foster false corruption case on individuals. There should be a legal provision to punish police or any other agency who abet such actions.
              Reply
              1. P
                P.C.Kulkarni
                May 25, 2016 at 10:05 am
                I agree with the author. Corruption is going to increase with SC verdict. Rich corrupt people are going to threaten anybody with defamation if they speak out about their corruption.
                Reply
                1. G
                  guest
                  May 25, 2016 at 6:33 am
                  I agree with the author...
                  Reply
                  1. Load More Comments