2016 (5) TMI 1478 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Human Rights - fundamental right to free speech - Held that - The principles as regards reasonable restriction as has been stated by this Court from time to time are that the restriction should not be excessive and in public interest. The legislation should not invade the rights and should not smack of arbitrariness. The test of reasonableness cannot be determined by laying down any abstract standard or general pattern. It would depend upon the nature of the right which has been infringed or sought to be infringed. The ultimate impact , that is, effect on the right has to be determined. The impact doctrine or the principle of inevitable effect or inevitable consequence stands in contradistinction to abuse or misuse of a legislation or a statutory provision depending upon the circumstances of the case. The conception of social interest has to be borne in mind while considering reasonableness of the restriction imposed on a right. The social interest principle would include the felt needs of the society. The principles being stated, the attempt at present is to scrutinize whether criminalization of defamation in the manner as it has been done Under Section 499 Indian Penal Code withstands the said test. The submission of the Respondents is that right to life as has been understood by this Court while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution covers a wide and varied spectrum. Right to life includes the right to life with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forums, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings and, therefore, it is a precious human right which forms the are of all other rights. Whether Section 499 of Indian Penal Code either in the substantive sense or procedurally violates the concept of reasonable restriction? - Held that - Explanation 1 stipulates that an imputation would amount to defamation if it is done to a deceased person if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if he is living and is intended to be harmful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the width of the Explanation is absolutely excessive as it enables the family members to prosecute a criminal action whereas they are debarred to initiate civil action for damages. The provision along with Explanations and Exceptions cannot be called unreasonable, for they are neither vague nor excessive nor arbitrary. There can be no doubt that Court can strike down a provision, if it is excessive, unreasonable or disproportionate, but the Court cannot strike down if it thinks that the provision is unnecessary or unwarranted. Be it noted that it has also been argued that the provision is defeated by doctrine of proportionality - To treat a restriction constitutionally permissible it is necessary to scrutinize whether the restriction or imposition of limitation is excessive or not. The proportionality doctrine recognizes balancing of competing rights and the said hypothesis gains validity if it subserves the purpose it is meant for. When a law limits a constitutional right which many laws do, such limitation is constitutional if it is proportional. The law imposing restriction is proportional if it is meant to achieve a proper purpose, and if the measures taken to achieve such a purpose are rationally connected to the purpose, and such measures are necessary. Such limitations should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. Reasonableness is judged with reference to the objective which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not be in excess of that objective. The constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Constitutional validity of Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
3. The balance between the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. The interpretation of the term "defamation" in Article 19(2).
5. The applicability of the doctrine of proportionality to the restrictions imposed by criminal defamation laws.
6. The procedural aspects and potential misuse of the criminal defamation provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC:
The Supreme Court examined whether Sections 499 and 500 IPC, which criminalize defamation, impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court upheld the constitutional validity of these sections, emphasizing that the right to reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court noted that defamation laws serve a public interest by protecting individual reputation, which is essential for social harmony. The provisions were found not to be vague, arbitrary, or excessive, as they contain clear definitions, explanations, and exceptions.

2. Constitutional Validity of Sections 199(1) to 199(4) CrPC:
Sections 199(1) to 199(4) CrPC provide the procedural framework for prosecuting defamation cases. The Court upheld these provisions, stating that they do not violate the right to equality under Article 14. The classification allowing certain public officials to file defamation complaints through public prosecutors was deemed rational, as it pertains to their conduct in public functions. The Court emphasized that public servants have a distinct role, and their protection from defamatory attacks is justified.

3. Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Right to Reputation:
The Court acknowledged the importance of freedom of speech and expression in a democracy but emphasized that this right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the right to reputation, which is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. The Court held that criminal defamation laws are a reasonable restriction on free speech, as they protect individual dignity and social harmony. The provisions were found to strike a balance between protecting reputation and allowing freedom of expression.

4. Interpretation of "Defamation" in Article 19(2):
The term "defamation" in Article 19(2) was interpreted to include both civil and criminal defamation. The Court rejected the argument that defamation should only be considered a civil wrong, emphasizing that criminal defamation serves a public interest by protecting individual reputation. The Court also dismissed the application of the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which would have limited the term "defamation" to actions inciting public disorder.

5. Doctrine of Proportionality:
The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether criminal defamation laws impose excessive restrictions on free speech. It concluded that the restrictions are not disproportionate, as they are necessary to protect the right to reputation and maintain social harmony. The Court emphasized that the provisions are narrowly tailored, with specific exceptions and explanations to prevent misuse.

6. Procedural Aspects and Potential Misuse:
The Court addressed concerns about the potential misuse of criminal defamation provisions, particularly the issue of multiple complaints and the role of public prosecutors. It highlighted that the procedural safeguards in the CrPC, such as the requirement for a complaint by an aggrieved person and the scrutiny by magistrates, provide adequate protection against misuse. The Court also noted that individuals could challenge the issuance of summons or the jurisdiction of courts through appropriate legal remedies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) CrPC. It emphasized the need to balance the right to freedom of speech with the right to reputation, recognizing that criminal defamation laws serve a legitimate public interest. The provisions were found to be reasonable, proportionate, and adequately safeguarded against misuse. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of protecting individual dignity while allowing for free expression within the bounds of the law.