Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors.
(2016) 7 SCC 221
In the Supreme Court of India
WP (Crl.) 184/ 2014
Before Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Decided on May 13, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Constitutional validity of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 44, 499, 500)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 154, 156(3), 199(1), 199(2), 199(3), 199(4), 200, 204)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 19(2), 21)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the criminalisation of defamation.
• The petitioner contends that the criminalisation of defamation impedes free speech. It violates the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Private defamation claims may be resolved in civil courts instead of making a criminal case and penalising it.
• The complainant and Union of India contended that the criminalisation of defamation does not impede free speech. It is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2).

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the purpose of reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2) is to safeguard the interests of the state and the general public, not of an individual. The court should not consider Article 19(2) as a source of authority.
• The petitioner’s counsel argues that a restriction that goes beyond the requirement of public interest cannot be considered a reasonable restriction.
• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the language of sections 499 and 500 is clearly demonstrative of infringement in excess. The explanation provides a greater ambit and discretion without any guidance. Hence, the provision is arbitrary and unreasonable.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right.
• The respondent’s counsel clarifies that ‘defamation’ includes criminal defamation and that it would include public interest.
• The respondent’s counsel argues that the remedies for civil and criminal defamation are different and separate.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench concluded that an affected party can take civil action in cases of defamation if there is no limitation to the same.
• Individual interest and community interest are not independent but rather interdependent. The criminalization of defamation does not invite the frown of any of the articles of the Constitution, nor is it an unreasonable restriction.

Final Decision

• The bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The bench disposed of the petition, along with all pending criminal miscellaneous petitions.

Shrawani Mohani, an undergraduate student at ILS Law College, Pune, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.