‘Prove or Perish’ Act is legal misfit

CM’s proposed action against those making complaints faces free-speech hurdles: Experts

The statement of Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao that the government would enact a “prove or perish Act”, which would mandate those who make allegations against the government to prove them or face stringent action, has triggered a debate among jurists about the validity of such a legislation.

Many advocates pointed out that if the Act aimed to deter or punish people or political opponents who criticise the ruling government; it would not pass the test of legal scrutiny. If the Act curtailed voices against the government, it would be contrary to the provisions of free speech guaranteed under the Constitution.

Mr Chandrasekhar Rao, while replying to the debate on motion of thanks to the Governor’s address in the Assembly, criticised the Opposition for levelling “baseless allegations” of corruption in any programme the government takes up.

He said, “We will no longer tolerate this. Anyone making allegations on the government should prove them; else they have to face stringent action. We will soon bring an Act in this regard.”

Mr Sarasani Satyam Reddy, senior advocate of the High Court, said the Chief Minister’s statement would benefit the ruling party as it would restrain its opponents from hurling corruption allegations.

He said enactment of such a law would not be easy in view of the existing provisions under the civil and criminal laws.

Mere utterance could not be brought under any law, without following due procedure contemplated under existing laws, he said.

He said that in Subramanian Swamy v. Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court, the Centre advocated retaining Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, saying that criminal defamation would work as a deterrent against the growing tendency to defame people through social media.

Mr C. Mallesh Rao, a criminal lawyer, said the existing provisions under the IPC for criminal defamation and civil defamation were enough to tackle persons making false or baseless allegations against individuals or the state.

Moreover, if the Chief Minister intended to bring in a special law, he would have to incorporate provisions to prosecute elected representatives for their failure in fulfilling their poll promises.

Mr A. Santosh Kumar, advocate of the High Court, said that defining the words “baseless” or “irresponsible” or “motivated” was very difficult as they were too general in nature to impute to a person and prosecute him under the proposed Act.

A person has to be given an opportunity to prove what has been uttered and only then can he be brought under the fold of the penal provision contained under the Act, he added.

He felt that the Act has to provide a mechanism for proving a particular utterance; otherwise, a genuine allegation may not be acted upon as the person making such allegation is sought to be prosecuted under the proposed Act.