AREA: Defamation
Judges: P.C. Pant and Dipak Misra
FACTS:
High-profile defendants in this case included AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. They were accused of criminal defamation. In a tweet, Swamy had alluded to a meeting between the LTTE and former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalitha. In a speech, Gandhi asserted that the RSS had a hand in Mahatma Gandhi's murder, while Kejriwal charged Nitin Gadkari with corruption.
The petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the legality of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 199(1)–199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They claimed that these clauses violated Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees them the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
ISSUES:
The main questions were
Whether Article 19(1)(a) was violated by Sections 499 IPC and 199 CrPC, and
Whether Article 21's right to life includes the right to reputation.
JUDGMENT:
The validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC as well as Section 199 CrPC was maintained by the bench of Justices P.C. Pant and Dipak Misra. The Court determined that criminal defamation rules were not unreasonable or ambiguous and acknowledged the right to reputation as an essential component of an individual's identity under Article 21. The Court noted the clarity of the criminal defamation statute and distinguished this case from earlier decisions such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. It dismissed the petitions, ruling that the statute upholds the goal of preserving peace within the polity and permits further trial sessions.
Comments