Alliance University - Central Campus, Chikkahadage Cross Chandapura-

Anekal, Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 562106

Subject Name – LAW OF TORTS
Subject code- CLAW 2004

Case Analysis on
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India,Min. of Law

Submitted by: - Submitted to: -

PNS Reddy Vinay,2022BBLH07ASL085 Prof. Shubhi Trivedi
 Case Analysis

Subramanian Swamy
Versus
Union of India, Min. of Law (2015 SCC OnLine SC 614)

Facts of the Case:

1
Famous politicians including Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi, and Arvind
Kejriwal were among the petitioners in this case who were accused of criminal
defamation. Many petitions were brought under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution, contesting the constitutionality of criminal defamation as a crime, as
defined by Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
199(1) to 199(4) of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioners contested the legality of the criminal defamation crime on the
grounds that it violated their right to freedom of expression, which is protected by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The criminal case against the
petitioners had been put on hold while the constitutional case was being heard

Issues:
Dr. Subramanian Swamy alleged corruption against Ms. Jayalathitha in 2014. In
reaction to these accusations, the State Government of Tamil Nadu launched
defamation lawsuits against Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Eventually, Dr.
Subramanian Swamy and a few other well-known politicians contested the
constitutionality of the crime of criminal defamation.
One of the seminal cases in the history of criminal defamation is this one. Also,
this was the first instance in which the Supreme Court heard a frontal challenge to
the validity of criminal defamation legislation, one of the strictest and oldest laws
limiting expression. The constitutional legality of the criminal defamation charge
under Indian law was challenged, but those arguments were rejected.

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/aspects-of-defamation-in-india-with-respect-to-subramanian-swamy-v-union-of-india/
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's solicitor claimed that the idea described in Article 19(2) of the
Indian Constitution is quite wide and that limitations may be placed on it.
Therefore, these limitations must be carefully narrowly constructed. Understanding
the exception requires applying the noscitur a sociis principle, which states that in
order to comprehend and ascertain the meaning of a vague or ambiguous term
specified in a legislation, the terms with which it is related in the context must be
taken into account.
Defamation, according to the petitioner's solicitor, is an in personam civil wrong.
As a result, it is not covered by the Basic Rights, which are granted in the interest
of the general public. The right to one's reputation is a private right under Article
21 of the Indian Constitution, hence when a private person publishes a defamatory
statement, it cannot be viewed as a criminal conduct because it serves no public
good. Consequently, making slander a crime that violates in rem rights would be
against the Constitution. As a result, Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution does
not apply to Section 499 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860.The petitioner's
solicitor further made the point that because Section 499 of the Indian Criminal
Code, 1860 goes beyond what is in the best interest of the general public, it is not
subject to the reasonable limitations set forth in Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution. Hence, it argued that a law should be declared unconstitutional if it
deprives a person of their right to express the truth. The requirement to show that a
defamatory statement was made for the benefit of the public is similarly
unreasonable.
Arguements of the Respondent:
The Attorney General, who is the counsel for the respondents, claimed that the
limitations outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution should not be read
in a silo but rather in the context of the entire document. Since Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution is not a stand-alone, unalienable right, limitations may be
placed on it. By equating the public wrong with the harm done to the general
public, the respondent's solicitor ignored the ineffective distinction between a
private and public wrong made by the petitioner's solicitor. The respondent's legal
representative stated that reputational loss is not always remediable through
monetary compensation and that, in light of this, the right to reputation cannot be
distinguished from the right to dignity protected by Article 21. Along with dividing
the freedom of speech and expression from the right to offend, the right to
reputation also does this.
The Attorney General centred on the Constituent Assembly discussions and
claimed that because there was no other legal provision, Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution was specifically written with constraints in order to protect Section
499 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860. Consequently, the entire objective of
putting reasonable constraints would be thwarted if these restrictions under Article
19(2) are read independently of Section 499 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860.
When it comes to the distinction between the rights of society as a whole and the
rights established by individuals under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian
Constitution, such a distinction would be deceptive. The claims of the Petitioner
are therefore inadmissible because even the Court has shown that Articles 14, 19,
and 21 are one in its numerous rulings.
In addition, the Freedom of Speech and Expression is safeguarded by Section
199(1) of the Criminal Process Code, 1973. The Petitioner is required by this Part
to pursue the criminal complaint independently of the state's legal system. Hence,
anyone who might otherwise file a pointless petition and clog the Magistrate's
courts is discouraged by this clause.

Judgement:
The Apex Court dismissed the objections to the constitutionality of criminal
defamation and stated that the limitations placed on the right to freedom of
expression by the criminalization of defamation were fair and reasonable in
character. The Court further declared that it is a constitutional requirement to
uphold others' dignity.
As a result, the Supreme Court maintained the legality of the criminal charge of
defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court
claimed that the Right to Reputation is covered by the Right to Life guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution based on rulings made by other nations on the
subject. The examination of the definitions of "defamation" and "reputation" and
how those terms relate to the freedom of speech and expression protected by the
Indian Constitution. The Court determined that each of these phrases were distinct
and unambiguous after reviewing a number of precedents Moreover, the Court's
assertion that the Right to Reputation is covered under the Right to Life guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution expands the scope of Article 21, which has
traditionally been interpreted only the right to life and personal liberty. This
expansion of Article 21 may have implications for future cases involving the
protection of reputation.
Analysis:
The case was filed by Subramanian Swamy, who alleged that the respondent,
Rahul Gandhi, had defamed him in a statement he made to the media. The
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law (2016) case brought up
important issues surrounding the balance between the right to freedom of
expression and the need to protect individual reputation and dignity. While the
right to free speech is important, it must be exercised responsibly and with due
regard for the rights of others. The judgment recognizes that public figures are
subject to greater criticism, but it also highlight that this does not give individuals
the right to make false and defamatory statements. It also highlights the need for
individuals to exercise their right to free speech responsibly and with due regard
for the rights of others.
As I Analysed it's important to understand the balance between the right to
freedom of expression and the protection of others' dignity and reputation. While
it's important to have the freedom to express our opinions and ideas, we should
also be mindful of how our words and actions may impact others. It's important to
consider the consequences of our speech and behavior and to respect others' rights
to dignity and reputation. Additionally, it's important to be aware of the laws
surrounding defamation and to avoid engaging in behavior that could be
considered defamatory.