Criminal defamation can’t be used to throttle democracy

CHENNAI: The State cannot use criminal defamation cases to throttle democracy, observed the Madras High Court on Thursday while quashing 28 proceedings against various newspapers. Holding that none of the cases were about the State being defamed though the essence of criminal prosecution under Section 199(2) of CrPC ought to be on that aspect, it added.

“If the State becomes an impulsive prosecutor in criminal defamation matters, that too in an era of social media where there are scores of abusive contents made against public figures, the Sessions Courts will get clogged with innumerable matters which are sometimes vindictive in nature only to settle scores with opposition parties. The intention of the legislature would never have been for this unlawful object,” said Justice Abdul Quddhose.

In the cases on hand, there was no allegation that the State has been defamed and hence no question of prosecution, Justice Quddhose said, expressing dismay over 226 defamation cases filed from 2012 to 2020 pending in various sessions courts till date.

“As seen from the data, irrespective of the political party which is in power, cases under section 199(2) CrPC have been filed. In many cases, the High Court has stayed the prosecution. Due to the mechanical filing of complaints under section 199(2) CrPC, the Sessions Courts are sometimes clogged with those matters due to reckless filing without application of mind and sometimes vindictively,” the judge observed.

Noting that this menace would have to be curbed and nipped in the bud, Justice Quddhose said, “The criminal defamation law is meant for a laudable object in real cases of necessity and cannot be misused by using the State as a tool to settle scores of a constitutional functionary over his adversary. A constitutional functionary must be able to face criticism, as they owe a solemn duty to the people.”

Also, likening the State as a parent for all citizens in so far as defamation law was concerned, the judge in his order running to over 100 pages, said, “It is normal for some parents to face vituperative insults from their children. Despite those insults, parents don’t disown their children quite easily. They always have the hope that their children will mend themselves in the near future. Only in rarest of rare cases when the character and behaviour of their children are irretrievably broken down and irreconcilable, the parents disown them.”

However, Justice Quddhose also sounded a word of caution to the media. “Our nation has always respected the role of the media and has highest regard for their independent and truthful reporting. But of late for quite number of years, there seems to be some decay happening in every sphere of democracy, including the Media. If the rottenness is not removed, it will spread like fire causing great peril to our robust democracy.”

He said while the national anthem, national flag, national emblem. etc. were respected, the same was often not accorded to the national motto, ‘Satyameva Jayate’ (truth alone triumphs). It is “equally important like others for the survival of our democracy”, the judge added.

The criminal defamation law cannot be misused by State as a tool to settle scores of a constitutional functionary over his adversary, the court observed