SC agrees to examine petition on criminal defamation law

THE PETITIONER’S LAWYER SAYS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT MISUSE AUTHORITY TO HARASS THOSE WHO CRITICISE GOVT POLICIES

NEW DELHI: Should a public prosecutor mechanically grant sanction to take legal action against a public servant — including the President, Prime Minister and chief ministers — under the criminal defamation law?

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine this issue on a petition filed by Vijayakanth, chief of Tamil Nadu-based political party Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam.

Vijayakanth is facing several defamation cases filed by Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra is likely to lay down guidelines for a prosecutor to follow while giving a go ahead to the prosecution.

Justice Misra’s bench had on May 13 upheld the provisions that make defamation a criminal offence in India. A batch of petitions to declare the two sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional were dismissed.

Cutting across party lines, political leaders, including Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, BJP MP Subramanian Swamy and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had sought the declaration.

Vijayakanth’s lawyer, GS Mani, contended before the bench that a public prosecutor should be independent and not misuse his sanctioning authority to muzzle free speech or harass those who criticise government policies. A public prosecutor is a government employee and, Mani claimed, tends to “become a post office at the hands of the state administration.”

Solicitor general Ranjit Kumar held a similar view.

When enquired by the court, the solicitor said prosecutors should be neutral and give sanction after considering all the facts of the complaint presented before him.

Mani argued that the “citizenry right to criticise cannot be atrophied by constant launching of criminal prosecution for defamation on each and every issue to silence the critics because when criticism in a vibrant democracy in this manner is crippled, the democracy which is best defined as the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” would lose its cherished values.