This Case Commentary is written by Himanshu Gupta, a Fourth-Year Law Student of CPJ College Of Higher Studies And School Of Law

CASE DETAILS

CASE NAME: - Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, Min. Of Law.

DECIDED ON 13 May 2016

COURT- Supreme Court of India

PARTIES- SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (PLAINTIFF)

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS. (RESPONDENT)

STATUTES CHALLENGED

· Section 499 of IPC – definition of defamation

· Section 500 of IPC – punishment for defamation (up to 2 years or fine or both)

· Section 199(1) to 199(4) of CrPC- outlines the procedure for prosecution in case of defamation

INTRODUCTION

This petition was filed by DR. Subramanian Swamy who was an economist and politician and also a reputed member of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). He filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 which governed the defamation laws.

FACTS

The petitioner i.e. Dr. Subramanian Swamy with several other petitioners like Rahul Gandhi (member of Congress) and Arvind Kejriwal (member of Aam aadmi party) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 of Indian penal code, 1860 and section 199(1) to 199(4) of code of criminal procedure, 1973 which governed the defamation laws in India.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

1. The first ground on which the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was that both these provisions violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression provided under article 19(1) of the constitution of India,1950.

2. The petitioner contended that the provisions governing the defamation laws have a chilling effect on the right to free speech and also contended that these provisions are vague.

3. The petitioner’s main contention was that the right to reputation is necessary for every citizen but it should not override the fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression.

ISSUES RAISED

1. The first issue before the Supreme Court was whether sections 499 and 500 of the Indian penal violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech under Article 19(1) of the constitution of India,1950.

2. The second issue raised concern on whether the right to reputation is overriding the right to freedom of speech or not.

3. The last issue before the Supreme Court was whether sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the code of criminal procedure put any unreasonable restrictions on Article 19(2) of the constitution of India.

CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. The petitioner contended that sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 violated the rights provided under article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution of India, 1950.

2. The petitioner also contended that India is a democratic nation and these articles put an unreasonable restriction on the citizens of the country.

3. The petitioner stated that due to fear of criminal prosecution, the citizens of the country are not able to express themselves freely as they might get prosecuted for the same.

4. The petitioner also contended that the right to reputation is necessary but it should not override the freedom to free speech and expression.

CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent contended that the right to reputation provided under Article 21 of the constitution of India, 1950 is necessary to prevent unnecessary harm to the reputation built over the years.

2. They contended that the defamation laws provided under the Indian penal code, 1860 put a reasonable restriction on the people and they are necessary to maintain public order.

3. They contended that the right to reputation and the right to freedom of speech both are essential parts of the constitution of India and there should be a healthy balance between them.

4. The respondent stated that there are enough judicial safeguards available under the law to prevent the defamation laws from getting misused by the people and section 499 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ensures that only a person who has defamation gets prosecuted.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Supreme Court on 13 May 2016, decided this matter in the favour of respondent and upheld the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian penal code and sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.

2. The Supreme Court stated that the right to reputation is a fundamental right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950, and indeed an inherent part of an individual’s dignity.

3. The Supreme Court stated that the defamation laws in India have a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech which is necessary to serve the larger public and protect its reputation.

4. The Supreme Court stated that the defamation laws did not have any chilling effect on the right to freedom of speech as contended by the petitioner during arguments.

5. The Supreme Court stated that a healthy balance between the right to reputation and the right to defamation should be made to uphold the overall democracy in the nation.

6. The Supreme Court during the hearing of the matter also concluded that the defamation laws are not vague as contended by the petitioner.

7. The Supreme Court concluded that there are adequate judicial safeguards present under the law to prevent the innocent from getting prosecuted and to ensure that only the person who had intent to defamation should be prosecuted.

CONCLUSION

The case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India laid the importance of balancing the fundamental rights given to the citizens as all the fundamental rights provided by the law are of equal importance and should be protected.

The ruling of the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 199(1) to section 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1953 which laid the foundation for protecting the right to reputation and dignity of the citizens.

This decision has played a significant role in shaping the legal framework for defamation laws in India and creating a balance between the right to reputation and the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Apex Court had a significant legal issue before them to decide whether the defamation laws were overriding the fundamental rights provided under the constitution of India, in 1950 or not.

This case also had a major impact on preventing the misuse of defamation laws and reducing the chilling effect of these laws to create a balance between the individual’s dignity and reputation.

REFERENCES

· (Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, min. of law. on 13 May, 2016) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80997184/ accessed 18 September 2024

· ‘Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India’ (Global Freedom of Expression, 2 July 2021) https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/subramanian-swamy-v-union-india/ accessed 18 September 2024

· ‘Defamation as a Criminal Offence’ (Supreme Court Observer, 10 June 2022) https://www.scobserver.in/cases/subramanian-swamy-union-of-india-defamation-as-a-criminal-offence-case-background/ accessed 18 September 2024

· Sehgal DR, ‘Aspects of Defamation in India concerning Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India’ (iPleaders, 20 November 2021) https://blog.ipleaders.in/aspects-of-defamation-in-india-with-respect-to-subramanian-swamy-v-union-of-india/ accessed 18 September 2024

· Admin, ‘Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India, Air 2016 SC 2728 - Legal Vidhiya’ (Legal Vidhiya -, 11 April 2023) https://legalvidhiya.com/subramaniam-swamy-vs-union-of-india-air-2016-sc-2728/ accessed 18 September 2024

· Network LN, ‘Subramanian Swamy’s Plea to Delete “Socialism” & “Secularism” from Preamble to Constitution : Supreme Court to Hear on Sep 23’ (Live Law, 2 September 2022) https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/subramanian-swamys-plea-to-delete-socialism-secularism-from-preamble-to-constitution-supreme-court-to-hear-on-sep-23-208199 accessed 18 September 2024

· Network L, ‘Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors’ (LAW INSIDER INDIA- INSIGHT OF LAW (SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND JUDICIARY, 7 October 2020) https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/subramanian-swamy-vs-union-of-india-ministry-of-law-ors accessed 18 September 2024

Bhatia G, ‘Why Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India Is Arguably the Most Significant Free Speech Case in Years’ (Scroll. in, 14 July 2015) https://scroll.in/article/740037/why-subramanian-swamy-vs-union-of-india-is-arguably-the-most-significant-free-speech-case-in-years