Opinion

Why Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India is arguably the most significant free speech case in years

This is the first time that the Supreme Court is hearing a frontal challenge to the constitutionality of criminal defamation.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing its third important free speech case of 2015. Earlier this year, the Court had struck down the notorious Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, in a judgment that was hailed both for its progressive outcome, as well as the quality of its reasoning. In June, however, the Court seemed to take two steps back, when it invented a new standard of obscenity law applicable to “historically respectable personalities”. The case that completes the trio – Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India – is arguably the most significant, since it involves a constitutional challenge to one of India’s oldest and most stringent speech-restricting laws: criminal defamation.

Criminal defamation

Criminal defamation is contained in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. This provision criminalises speech that is intended to harm the reputation of any person. The provision is worded extraordinarily broadly, and instances of its abuse – particularly aimed at silencing critical reporting – are legion. They range from the 125 defamation cases filed against The Hindu by the Tamil Nadu government to its use by encounter cops against investigative journalists. Having now existed upon the statute books for 155 years since the Indian Penal Code was drafted in 1860, perhaps the only surprise is that a constitutional challenge took this long to materialise.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions upon this freedom, in the interests of eight separate categories such as “public order”, “decency or morality”, etc. One of these categories is “defamation”. At first blush, this might appear to settle the issue. If the framers of the Constitution categorically wrote defamation into Article 19(2), then surely criminal defamation is a constitutionally permissible restriction upon speech.

Not necessarily. According to the Constitution, the State may not simply restrict speech in the interests of one of the eight Article 19(2) categories, but must do so reasonably. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has developed a rich jurisprudence around the question of what constitutes a reasonable restriction. One of the key components of reasonableness, according to the Court, is that the restriction must be “narrowly drawn”. In other words, the State must frame its laws in such a way that they restrict speech only to the extent necessary to achieve a legitimate goal. If the law goes beyond this, it is termed “over-broad”, and must be invalidated. This not only ensures that the State is held to strict account when it seeks to curtail individual liberties, but also guards against the “chilling effect” of broad and vaguely-worded laws, that prompt people to engage in self-censorship in order to stay on the right side of the line.

From this perspective, there is a strong case to be made that criminal defamation is not a reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech, and ought to be struck down.

The burdens of criminal law

One striking feature of defamation law is that it exists in two forms. It is a civil offence, which seeks to redress damage to reputation by ordering the offender to compensate his victim. But it is also a criminal offence, which is deemed to be a wrong against the State, and punished by imprisonment. What explains this duality?

The answer lies in medieval England, a place where the most acceptable way of responding to an insult was to challenge your tormentor to a duel. Frequent duels were a headache for the authorities. Consequently, in a bid to maintain public order by providing incensed hotheads with legal recourse, the remedy of criminal defamation was introduced into law. Public order is what linked the defamation with the requirement that a crime must, in some way, be a wrong against the State and community at large, and not simply an offence against a private individual.

When the British Indian Law Commissioners met to discuss the draft of a proposed Indian Penal Code in 1838, they acknowledged this history, but decided to introduce criminal defamation into the Code without requiring any connection with public order. Consequently, criminal defamation appeared in the Code as an anomaly: a public remedy against a private wrong. But without the underlying goal of public order that justified criminalisation, the raison d’être of criminal defamation is entirely lost. If the object is simply to redress a person for the damage inflicted to his reputation, there exists a civil defamation regime that expressly contemplates compensation and damages. Criminal law is a superfluity.

But it is not merely a superfluity. It is much worse. Criminal penalties restrict speech to a far greater extent than civil remedies, by placing onerous burdens upon the accused. The threat of arrest at any moment, and the possibility of eventual imprisonment exercise a deep and pervasive chilling effect upon would-be speakers; the requirement that the accused must be present at the place of hearing, coupled with the fact that there is no limit to the number of cases that can be filed, is an open invitation to harassment. And even if the accused has a good defence, he is only allowed to bring up his defence after the trial commences. Consequently, in even the most frivolous of cases, the accused must face the legal process throughout the long pre-trial stage, which itself has the potential to drag on for months, if not years.

For all these reasons, having a criminal penalty for a wrong that can be dealt with satisfactorily by civil law is a disproportionate restriction upon free speech, and fails the reasonableness requirement of Article 19(2).

Of Truth and the Chilling Effect

The strongest argument against the constitutionality of criminal defamation, however, lies in the Supreme Court’s own past history. In a 1994 judgment called R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court recognised that the regime of civil defamation, as it then stood, was an unreasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech. Under that regime, the maker of a defamatory statement bore the burden of proving its “truth”. There was no let-off for honest mistakes, or mistakes made even after all due care had been taken. Following the famous American Supreme Court decision in New York Times vs Sullivan, which had held that free speech needs “breathing space” to survive (which, translated, means the freedom to make mistakes), the Supreme Court held that insofar as speech about public officials was concerned, it would not be enough to show merely that it was defamatory, and false. It would also have to be shown that the speaker either knew it to be false, or acted with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

The judgment in Rajagopal set up a strangely anomalous regime. Civil defamation was now subject to rigorous, speech-protective standards, along the lines of the law in the United States (and other liberal jurisdictions as well). Criminal defamation, however, continued to follow the old, discarded standards. In fact, a quick look at Section 499 reveals that criminal defamation is even more draconian than the civil defamation regime which was held inconsistent with free speech in Rajagopal. Under Section 499, the accused must not simply prove that his statement is true – he must also prove that it was made in the “public interest”. Public interest, of course, is such a compendious term, that it makes it almost impossible for a speaker to know with any certainty beforehand, which side of the line his speech might fall. This will inevitably lead to self-censorship, and chill even legitimate speech, which was the precise concern that led the Court in Rajagopal to modify the civil law of defamation.

This anomaly has not gone unnoticed in other jurisdictions, which have either struck down criminal defamation as unconstitutional, or introduced sufficient safeguards, on the lines of New York Times vs Sullivan, to neutralise the chilling effect. Section 499, however, is crystal clear, and admits no creative judicial “modification”. For that reason, it is an unreasonable restriction upon the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, and ought to be struck down.

Whither Forward?

Historically, the Supreme Court’s track record on free speech has been chequered. The Court has upheld colonial era blasphemy laws, obscenity laws, and sedition laws. It has upheld pre-censorship of films and wide police powers to curtail free association. But it has also limited the scope of anti-terror laws by insisting upon incitement to violence as a pre-requisite for punishing membership of banned organizations, and has struck down the draconian Section 66A. With the constitutionality of criminal defamation finally under challenge, it now has a chance to build upon the gains that were made in March 2015, and further cement a legacy of progressive, free speech rulings. As the Court resumes hearings on the 14th of July, all eyes will be upon it once again.

Disclosure: The writer is assisting one of the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of criminal defamation before the Supreme Court

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

India’s urban water crisis calls for an integrated approach

We need solutions that address different aspects of the water eco-system and involve the collective participation of citizens and other stake-holders.

According to a UN report, around 1.2 billion people, or almost one fifth of the world’s population, live in areas where water is physically scarce and another 1.6 billion people, or nearly one quarter of the world’s population, face economic water shortage. They lack basic access to water. The criticality of the water situation across the world has in fact given rise to speculations over water wars becoming a distinct possibility in the future. In India the problem is compounded, given the rising population and urbanization. The Asian Development Bank has forecast that by 2030, India will have a water deficit of 50%.

Water challenges in urban India

For urban India, the situation is critical. In 2015, about 377 million Indians lived in urban areas and by 2030, the urban population is expected to rise to 590 million. Already, according to the National Sample Survey, only 47% of urban households have individual water connections and about 40% to 50% of water is reportedly lost in distribution systems due to various reasons. Further, as per the 2011 census, only 32.7% of urban Indian households are connected to a piped sewerage system.

Any comprehensive solution to address the water problem in urban India needs to take into account the specific challenges around water management and distribution:

Pressure on water sources: Rising demand on water means rising pressure on water sources, especially in cities. In a city like Mumbai for example, 3,750 Million Litres per Day (MLD) of water, including water for commercial and industrial use, is available, whereas 4,500 MLD is needed. The primary sources of water for cities like Mumbai are lakes created by dams across rivers near the city. Distributing the available water means providing 386,971 connections to the city’s roughly 13 million residents. When distribution becomes challenging, the workaround is to tap ground water. According to a study by the Centre for Science and Environment, 48% of urban water supply in India comes from ground water. Ground water exploitation for commercial and domestic use in most cities is leading to reduction in ground water level.

Distribution and water loss issues: Distribution challenges, such as water loss due to theft, pilferage, leaky pipes and faulty meter readings, result in unequal and unregulated distribution of water. In New Delhi, for example, water distribution loss was reported to be about 40% as per a study. In Mumbai, where most residents get only 2-5 hours of water supply per day, the non-revenue water loss is about 27% of the overall water supply. This strains the municipal body’s budget and impacts the improvement of distribution infrastructure. Factors such as difficult terrain and legal issues over buildings also affect water supply to many parts. According to a study, only 5% of piped water reaches slum areas in 42 Indian cities, including New Delhi. A 2011 study also found that 95% of households in slum areas in Mumbai’s Kaula Bunder district, in some seasons, use less than the WHO-recommended minimum of 50 litres per capita per day.

Water pollution and contamination: In India, almost 400,000 children die every year of diarrhea, primarily due to contaminated water. According to a 2017 report, 630 million people in the South East Asian countries, including India, use faeces-contaminated drinking water source, becoming susceptible to a range of diseases. Industrial waste is also a major cause for water contamination, particularly antibiotic ingredients released into rivers and soils by pharma companies. A Guardian report talks about pollution from drug companies, particularly those in India and China, resulting in the creation of drug-resistant superbugs. The report cites a study which indicates that by 2050, the total death toll worldwide due to infection by drug resistant bacteria could reach 10 million people.

A holistic approach to tackling water challenges

Addressing these challenges and improving access to clean water for all needs a combination of short-term and medium-term solutions. It also means involving the community and various stakeholders in implementing the solutions. This is the crux of the recommendations put forth by BASF.

The proposed solutions, based on a study of water issues in cities such as Mumbai, take into account different aspects of water management and distribution. Backed by a close understanding of the cost implications, they can make a difference in tackling urban water challenges. These solutions include:

Recycling and harvesting: Raw sewage water which is dumped into oceans damages the coastal eco-system. Instead, this could be used as a cheaper alternative to fresh water for industrial purposes. According to a 2011 World Bank report, 13% of total freshwater withdrawal in India is for industrial use. What’s more, the industrial demand for water is expected to grow at a rate of 4.2% per year till 2025. Much of this demand can be met by recycling and treating sewage water. In Mumbai for example, 3000 MLD of sewage water is released, almost 80% of fresh water availability. This can be purified and utilised for industrial needs. An example of recycled sewage water being used for industrial purpose is the 30 MLD waste water treatment facility at Gandhinagar and Anjar in Gujarat set up by Welspun India Ltd.

Another example is the proposal by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to recycle and reclaim sewage water treated at its existing facilities to meet the secondary purposes of both industries and residential complexes. In fact, residential complexes can similarly recycle and re-use their waste water for secondary purposes such as gardening.

Also, alternative rain water harvesting methods such as harvesting rain water from concrete surfaces using porous concrete can be used to supplement roof-top rain water harvesting, to help replenish ground water.

Community initiatives to supplement regular water supply: Initiatives such as community water storage and decentralised treatment facilities, including elevated water towers or reservoirs and water ATMs, based on a realistic understanding of the costs involved, can help support the city’s water distribution. Water towers or elevated reservoirs with onsite filters can also help optimise the space available for water distribution in congested cities. Water ATMs, which are automated water dispensing units that can be accessed with a smart card or an app, can ensure metered supply of safe water.

Testing and purification: With water contamination being a big challenge, the adoption of affordable and reliable multi-household water filter systems which are electricity free and easy to use can help, to some extent, access to safe drinking water at a domestic level. Also, the use of household water testing kits and the installation of water quality sensors on pipes, that send out alerts on water contamination, can create awareness of water contamination and drive suitable preventive steps.

Public awareness and use of technology: Public awareness campaigns, tax incentives for water conservation and the use of technology interfaces can also go a long way in addressing the water problem. For example, measures such as water credits can be introduced with tax benefits as incentives for efficient use and recycling of water. Similarly, government water apps, like that of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, can be used to spread tips on water saving, report leakage or send updates on water quality.

Collaborative approach: Finally, a collaborative approach like the adoption of a public-private partnership model for water projects can help. There are already examples of best practices here. For example, in Netherlands, water companies are incorporated as private companies, with the local and national governments being majority shareholders. Involving citizens through social business models for decentralised water supply, treatment or storage installations like water ATMs, as also the appointment of water guardians who can report on various aspects of water supply and usage can help in efficient water management. Grass-root level organizations could be partnered with for programmes to spread awareness on water safety and conservation.

For BASF, the proposed solutions are an extension of their close engagement with developing water management and water treatment solutions. The products developed specially for waste and drinking water treatment, such as Zetag® ULTRA and Magnafloc® LT, focus on ensuring sustainability, efficiency and cost effectiveness in the water and sludge treatment process.

BASF is also associated with operations of Reliance Industries’ desalination plant at Jamnagar in Gujarat.The thermal plant is designed to deliver up to 170,000 cubic meters of processed water per day. The use of inge® ultrafiltration technologies allows a continuous delivery of pre-filtered water at a consistent high-quality level, while the dosage of the Sokalan® PM 15 I protects the desalination plant from scaling. This combination of BASF’s expertise minimises the energy footprint of the plant and secures water supply independent of the seasonal fluctuations. To know more about BASF’s range of sustainable solutions and innovative chemical products for the water industry, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.