Supreme Court's Perspective on Criminal Defamation

Justice M.M. Sundresh of the Supreme Court has expressed concerns over the increasing application of criminal defamation laws by private entities and political groups, suggesting the need for its decriminalization. This sentiment reflects a growing judicial interest in reassessing the law's relevance and impact.

Background and Context

• In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation in the case of Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India, arguing it as a "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to protect an individual's reputation.

Current Judicial Observations and Actions

• Justice Sundresh's recent comments raise the question of whether defamation by private individuals serves any public interest.
• His remarks came during a hearing involving The Wire news website and a journalist, linked to a defamation suit by ex-JNU Professor Amita Singh.
• There have been multiple instances where the Supreme Court has stayed summons in defamation cases involving political figures like Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor, emphasizing that courts should not be used to settle political scores.

Notable Cases and Judicial Commentary

• In January 2025, defamation proceedings against Rahul Gandhi were stayed following his comments about Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
• Similar cases involved remarks made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra and comments about V.D. Savarkar.
• In another significant case, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Karnataka's Minister against a High Court ruling, stating political battles should remain outside the courtroom.
• The court’s observation in the Imran Pratapgarhi case highlighted that defamation claims must be judged by the standards of "reasonable, strong-minded" individuals, not "weak and vacillating minds."