Source: Indian Express

Introduction

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court intervened to halt the progression of a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister (appellant). The case, titled Arvind Kejriwal v. State National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr. (2024), revolved around appellant's retweeting of a YouTube video critical of a political party’s IT cell.

What is the Background of the Case?

• Appellant faced a criminal defamation case for retweeting a video posted by YouTuber in 2018.
• The Delhi High Court upheld the summons issued to appellant, stating that every retweet of a defamatory imputation would ordinarily constitute 'publication' under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Appellant challenged this decision, arguing that retweeting does not necessarily imply endorsement.

What is Defamation Law in India?

Defamation in India can be both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.

• Civil Defamation:
  • Civil defamation is the act of making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation.
  • It allows the affected party to sue the person who made the false statement for damages in a civil court.
  • The objective of civil defamation is to compensate the victim for any harm caused to their reputation.
• Criminal Defamation:
  • Criminal defamation is a criminal offence wherein a person intentionally makes a false statement about someone else with the intent to harm their reputation.
  • This false statement must be published or communicated to a third party. Criminal defamation is considered a criminal offence under Section 499 of the IPC.
  • The punishment for criminal defamation can include two years imprisonment and/or a fine as prescribed under Section 500 of the IPC.

What is Free Speech and Legal Precedents?

• Constitutional Position:
  • While Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions, including defamation.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016):
  • The Supreme Court concluded that criminal defamation laws are not disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech.
  • It argued that protecting reputation is a fundamental right that serves the social interest, and reasonable restrictions on free speech are necessary to maintain democratic order and mutual respect.
• Kaushal Kishore v. Union of India (2023):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the conflict between the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to dignity protected under Article 21.
  • The court emphasized the importance of balancing fundamental rights and addressing the evolving understanding of these rights in modern society.
  • The majority judgment held that while the right to freedom of speech is crucial, it cannot be curtailed solely to protect the dignity of an individual.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
  • The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) due to its violation of free speech.

What is Correlation in Retweeting and Defamation?

• Retweeting allegedly defamatory content can constitute defamation, as it involves communicating defamatory statements to a wider audience.
• While online defamation falls under IPC Section 499, the IT Act allows for the removal of such content under Section 69 of the IT Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's intervention in defamation's case underscores the delicate balance between free expression and reputational harm. While individuals have the right to express themselves freely, they must also exercise responsibility, especially those in positions of influence.