A Balancing Act Between Free Speech and Individual Dignity: The 22nd Law Commission of India, in its 285th report named ‘The Law of Criminal Defamation,’ has advised the Union government that the right to freedom of speech and expression must be interpreted in balance with the right to reputation to ensure a harmonious and livable society. The report emphasizes that neither right is absolute.
In a comprehensive review of India’s defamation laws, the Law Commission has strongly advocated for the retention of criminal defamation within the country’s legal framework, emphasizing the paramount importance of safeguarding individual reputations. The Commission’s report, a culmination of extensive legal scrutiny and analysis, underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
“The whole jurisprudence around the law on criminal defamation has the essence of protecting one’s reputation and its facets,”
the law panel articulated, highlighting the intrinsic value of reputation in the fabric of societal relations and individual dignity. The panel’s findings are rooted in a deep understanding of the legal and social dimensions of defamation, advocating for a legal mechanism that deters malicious harm to a person’s standing in society.
The report elaborates on the constitutional backing for such laws, noting,
“Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in relation to defamation for safeguarding the reputation of individuals. Criminal defamation acts as a deterrent against false and malicious statements, preventing damage to one’s reputation that civil remedies might not adequately address.”
This perspective reinforces the Commission’s stance that criminal defamation serves as a necessary counterbalance to the potential abuses of free expression, ensuring that the right to speech does not come at the expense of an individual’s reputation.
Highlighting the significance of free expression, the Commission stated,
“The ability to express oneself freely, especially politically, is essential for achieving dignity in areas like self-actualization, self-governance, and the recognition of human value. Also, whereas the right to political expression is central to the concept of freedom of expression, the right to reputation is closer to the periphery.”
This distinction underscores the nuanced approach recommended by the Commission, advocating for a legal environment that fosters both free speech and the protection of reputation.
Addressing the limitations of civil defamation remedies, the report points out the practical challenges faced by victims of defamation, particularly those lacking financial resources.
“Not only does the crime of defamation serve a legitimate and important goal of the criminal law by protecting a person’s reputation from the intentional publication of a lie, but it provides protection in cases where the civil remedy would be deficient,”
the Commission observed. It further elaborated,
“Thus, the civil remedy does not provide a practical alternative where the victim does not have the financial means to pursue it, or where the offending party does not have the means to satisfy an order of payment of monetary damages to the victim.”
The report is the collective effort of a distinguished 7-member panel led by Chairperson Ritu Raj Awasthi, former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The panel members include Justice KT Sankaran, Prof. (Dr.) Anand Paliwal, Prof. DP Verma, Dr. Niten Chandra (ex-officio), Dr. Rajiv Mani (ex-officio), Mr. M Karunanithi (Part-time Member), and Prof. (Dr.) Raka Arya (Part-time Member), each bringing a wealth of legal expertise and insight to the Commission’s deliberations.
This recommendation by the Law Commission marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation in India, proposing a legal framework that upholds the dignity of individuals while accommodating the essential right to free speech.
