Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min.

of
Law (2016)
Citation : (2016) 7 scc 221
Bench: Justice Dipak Misra and Justice P. C. Pant
Date of judgment: May 13,2016
Court: Supreme court of India
Statues involved: Article 19 of Constitution of India 1950, section 499
& 500 of Indian penal code, section 199 of code of Criminal procedure,

Facts of the case

• In 2014, corruption charges were made by Dr. Subramanian Swamy
against Ms. Jayalathitha. Defamatory cases were filed by the State
Government of Tamil Nadu against Dr. Subramanian Swamy in
response to these allegations.
• The various Petitioners involved in this case included some notable
politicians like Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi, Arvind
Kejriwal on whom the charge of criminal defamation was put.
• Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, several petitions were
filed through which the constitutional validity of criminal
defamation as an offense which is mentioned under Section 499 and
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 199(1) to
Section 199 (4) of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
challenged.
• The Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the offense of
criminal defamation on the ground that it hampered their Right to
Freedom of Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
Issues raised
 • Whether the concept of criminal defamation is a superfluous
restraint on freedom of speech and expression.
• Whether Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 were vaguely and capriciously drafted.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
The Petitioner’s counsel contended that the idea defined in Article 19(2)
of the Indian Constitution is quite wide and that limitations can be
placed on it. However, these constraints must be carefully crafted to be
as restricted as possible.
Defamation, per the council, is a civil wrong committed in personam. As
a result, Section 499 is beyond the purview of Article 19(2) of the
Constitution, as it falls outside the ambit of Fundamental Rights, that is
bestowed in the public interest.
Defamation of any individual by a private individual is a component of a
private right within Article 21, it could not be classified as a “crime,”
because it serves no interests of the public, and its incorporation as a
crime under the law that protects in rem rights would indeed be
unconstitutional.
The Petitioner's counsel further argued that becausee Section 499 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 falls outside the common public’s interests, it
operates beyond the purview of Article 19(2) reasonable limits set out by
the Indian Constitution. As a result, it argued that if legislation violates a
person’s right to speak the truth, it must be ruled unconstitutional. The
criterion of demonstrating that a defamatory remark was made for the
public interest is similarly unreasonable.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Attorney General, who represented the Respondents, claimed that
the limits within Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution should not be
read in solitude but rather in context with Article 19(1)(a) because
Article 19(1)(a) is not a stand-alone and inalienable right, it can be
limited. He rejected the petitioner’s ineffective division between private
and public wrongs by defining the public wrong as something that harms
both the public and the polity as a whole.
The Respondent's counsel stated that reputational loss could not alwayss
be paid in monetary terms, and that, in light of this, the Right to
Reputation cannot be isolated as from Right to Dignity, which comes
under the jurisdiction of Article 21. Right to reputation is an
indispensable part of an individual’s personality which is protected by
Article 21. Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to Offend
separated by the Right to Reputation
If the limits in Article 19(2) are interpreted in solitude rather than in
conjunction with Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the entire
aim of imposing reasonable restrictions would be thwarted because there
is no alternative legal mechanism to safeguard Section 499 against
constitutional challenge.
Case outcome and judgment
Considering the validity of Statute 499 and its exclusions one at a time,
the court said unequivocally that there is no ambiguity in the entire
section. The court dismissed the petitioner’s contention about the ‘public
good,’ concluding that what constitutes a public good is a question of
fact that must be decided in a case-by-case manner.
As a result, the Supreme Court maintained the legality of the criminal
offense of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The Court based its decision on other nations’ rulings on the
subject, concluding that the Right to Reputation falls within Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution’s Right to Life.
The Supreme Court struck down claims to the constitutional legitimacy
of the Indian judicial system’s criminal defamation offense.
Decision overview
The analysis of the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’
as well as their interaction with the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Court said
that ‘Reputation’ as a concept is something which is a part of the
protection of ‘Dignity’ that is included under Article 21, that is, the
Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
• Restriction on Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
The Court took this opportunity and emphasized the sanctity as well as
the significance of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in a
democracy and at the same time, it was pointed out by the Court that this
right was subject to reasonable restrictions. However, such restrictions
should not be too much, yet they must serve the public interest. The
legislation which imposes such restrictions should not be arbitrary such
that they intrude upon the rights of the people.
Therefore, there shall be a balance between the Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression and the restrictions imposed on this right. Such a
balance can be achieved by weighing the importance to society of the
Freedom of Speech and Expression against the societal importance to
the public interest that is sought to be protected.
• Protection of reputation under Article 21
The Court noted that the criminal law has been chosen by the State as
one of the things that would protect reputation. Keeping in mind that
reputation is protected under Article 21, the Court said that it cannot
subscribe to the view that the offense of criminal defamation hinders the
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. It was emphasized by the
Court that the law on criminal defamation is very clear and thus, this law
can be distinguished from the other laws that had been struck down in
the past as they were infringing the Right to Freedom of Speech.
• Duty of every citizen to protect the dignity of fellow citizens
The Court took the liberty to further emphasize the significance of the
concepts of constitutional fraternity and fundamental duty. As per these
concepts, there is a constitutional duty as well as an expectation from
every citizen of the country to respect the dignity of their fellow citizens.
Since this is a duty that is imposed by the Constitution on each and
every citizen of the country, it would not be sound to conclude that the
existence of defamation as an offense under the law hinders the Right to
the Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Court also addressed the
question of whether the concept of ‘reasonableness’ was violated by the
provisions of criminal defamation whether substantively or procedurally.
The Court also examined whether these provisions of criminal
defamation are vague, arbitrary, or disproportionate.