NDA Defending a Regressive Legislation

Published: 17th July 2015 12:00 AM  |   Last Updated: 17th July 2015 05:27 AM   |  A+A-

Ignoring the tone and tenor of the Law Commission’s view in a recent consultation paper to weed out the provision of criminal defamation in the IPC, the Union government has sought to defend it in the Supreme Court that is examining its constitutionality. The Centre wants the provision to be retained as a deterrent against defamatory actions, ignoring the Commission’s view that threats of legal action by a coercive state can have a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression and put undue pressure on free press. That the NDA government, voted to power on the promise of transparency, should defend such a regressive law is unfortunate.

All the more so because the colonial law, rooted in England’s notorious Star Chamber in the 1500s, has been dumped in its place of origin. The grounds cited by the Centre to defend the indefensible that recourse to the civil remedy for defamation are ineffective and that the citizens’ reputation can be protected only by making it an offence punishable by two years imprisonment are specious. The solution lies in ensuring that the system deals with civil defamation more efficaciously and not in retaining a draconian law deleted from statute books of most democratic countries because it chills criticism of those in power. The main feature of enforcement of criminal defamation provisions in India after Independence has been the reckless use of the state’s coercive power to stifle criticism.

It is an invidious tool those in power have used against their political opponents and critics. Because it restricts speech, defamation law needs careful scrutiny in a democracy. Free speech plays a vital role in gauging the informed consent of the people to the acts of a democratically elected government and powerful private entities. While striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal case recently, the SC has remarked that a law that hits at the root of liberty and freedom of expression was unconstitutional. Even as the SC decides the constitutionality of  the provisions in the IPC criminalising defamation, the Centre will do well to reconsider its stand. None can dispute that the reputation of citizens must be protected. But this can be done by making civil remedies against it more effective.

Stay up to date on all the latest Editorials news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp