Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 13 May 2016, 2 judges

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC and Section 199 CrPC, holding that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2), reputation being part of Article 21.

Facts

A batch of writ petitions under Article 32, filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others, challenged 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. The petitioners argued that free speech cannot be curbed by the threat of criminal prosecution, that criminal defamation is a colonial relic which chills criticism and dissent, and that harm to reputation can be remedied in civil courts. The Union of India and the complainants defended the provisions as reasonable restrictions. Earlier decisions in R. Rajagopal and N. Ravi had left the question open. Proceedings before the trial courts had been stayed while the petitions were pending.

Questions before the Court

Is criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2)?
Are Section 499, its Explanations and Exceptions vague, excessive or arbitrary?
Is Section 199 CrPC, including the concept of 'some person aggrieved' and the special procedure for public servants, unconstitutional?

What the Court held

Reputation is an inherent component of Article 21. The right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to reputation must be balanced, and one person's reputation cannot be crucified at the altar of another's free speech.
Applying the balancing of fundamental rights, criminal defamation is not beyond Article 19(2), which itself uses the word 'defamation'. The existence of criminal defamation is not obnoxious to free speech and is not an unreasonable restriction.
Shreya Singhal does not support striking down Section 499; that decision concerned the vagueness of Section 66-A and distinguished defamation. Criminal defamation cannot be said to have a chilling effect on free speech.
Section 499 with its Explanations and Exceptions is neither vague nor excessive nor arbitrary; whether something is for the public good is a question of fact, and a person pleading an Exception must prove it.
Section 199 CrPC is valid; 'some person aggrieved' is decided by courts on the facts. Magistrates must scrutinise defamation complaints carefully before summoning. Petitioners were given eight weeks to challenge their summons before the High Court.

Why it matters

The judgment upholds criminal defamation against a challenge under Article 19(1)(a), treating reputation as part of the right to life under Article 21 and balancing the two rights. It reads 'defamation' in Article 19(2) to include criminal defamation, distinguishes Shreya Singhal, and stresses that Magistrates must apply their mind carefully before issuing summons on defamation complaints.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21, we do not think it should be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom. It is not a restriction that has an inevitable consequence which impairs circulation of thought and ideas.”

Dipak Misra, J.Page 193 of the judgment

“Therefore, in the ultimate conclusion, we come to hold that applying the doctrine of balancing of fundamental rights, existence of defamation as a criminal offence is not beyond the boundary of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, especially when the word "defamation" has been used in the Constitution.”

Dipak Misra, J.Page 204 of the judgment

“From the analysis we have made it is clear as day that 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.”

Dipak Misra, J.Page 241 of the judgment

“We have referred to these authorities to highlight that in matters of criminal defamation the heavy burden is on the Magistracy to scrutinise the complaint from all aspects.”

Dipak Misra, J.Page 265 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 499, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 356 (1) (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 500, Indian Penal Code
Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 222 (NCRB correspondence table)
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Constitution
Article 21, Constitution

Related judgments

Distinguishes Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)“As we understand the decision, the two-Judge Bench has neither directly nor indirectly laid down such a foundation.” (page 198)

Case and bench

Parties: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law
Case: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014 with connected Writ Petitions (Criminal) and Transfer Petitions (Criminal)
Decided: 13 May 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Dipak Misra, J.

Questions on this case

7 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.