Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation intended or known to harm a person’s reputation. Courts interpret reputation as part of the right to life under Article 21. However, criminalising defamation raises concerns over its chilling effect on free speech, journalistic freedom, and democratic dissent.

Body :

The Need for Decriminalising Defamation in India

• Protecting Freedom of Speech: Criminal defamation laws have a “chilling effect” on free speech, inhibiting journalists, whistle-blowers, and citizens from expressing legitimate criticism or dissent, resulting in self-censorship.
  • In September 2025, the Supreme Court itself noted that fear of criminal prosecution restricts the exercise of Article 19(1)(a) rights and that civil remedies sufficiently address reputational harm.
  • The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down the criminal section on online defamation (Section 66A of IT Act) precisely because it was vague and had a chilling effect on free speech.
• Preventing Abuse and Harassment: Criminal defamation has become a weapon for powerful individuals like politicians, actors, and industrialists to file Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
• Reducing Judicial Backlog and Delays: Defamation trials clog lower courts and consume vast judicial resources for private disputes.
  • The Supreme Court, while hearing the Wire-JNU case in September 2025, observed protracted litigation and delays in thousands of criminal defamation cases.
• Safeguarding Press Freedom: Legal experts highlight that criminal defamation risks gagging the media and stifling democratic debate.
  • India is ranked 151st out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index (2025), highlighting significant challenges to journalistic freedom and media independence.
• Upholding Democratic Values: The Supreme Court, in its recent remark, emphasised that the dignity of reputation should be protected, but not at the cost of democratic pluralism and critical discourse.
• Conformity with Global Standards: International human rights organisations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and UNHRC, urge India to repeal criminal defamation laws.

Reforms to Balance Free Speech and the Protection of Reputation.

• Decriminalise Private Defamation, Retain Criminal Defamation for Public Interest: A balanced approach recommended by legal experts is to restrict criminal defamation only to cases involving public interest, national security, or public figures, while shifting private reputation disputes entirely to civil courts.
• Strengthen and Fast-track Civil Defamation Proceedings: India should introduce fast-track courts or dedicated benches to handle civil defamation cases with clear timelines and reasonable compensation limits, thus offering effective and timely remedies without criminalising speech.
• Introduce Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Legislation: SLAPP suits are used by powerful individuals and corporations to intimidate critics with costly litigation.
• Provide Specific Judicial Guidelines on Fair Criticism and Public Good: Drawing from the Supreme Court’s observations and international best practices, clear judicial principles should be codified to demarcate fair criticism, satire, and opinion from malicious defamation.
• Promote Media Literacy and Public Awareness on Responsible Speech: Encouraging responsible speech and educating citizens on the distinction between criticism and defamation can reduce frivolous cases.

Conclusion:

• Reforming defamation laws in India requires balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputation. As John Stuart Mill argued (in On Liberty), “silencing an opinion deprives humanity of the opportunity to exchange error for truth, thereby stifling critical thought and democratic accountability.”Thus, decriminalising private defamation, strengthening civil remedies, and enacting anti-SLAPP measures can protect journalists and citizens, foster responsible discourse, and uphold both constitutional freedoms and social justice.