Opinion

Why the Supreme Court ruling on criminal defamation bodes ill for the future of free speech in India

The court stayed true to its bleak record on freedom of expression and civil rights.

Ten months ago, as the Supreme Court began to hear the constitutional challenge to criminal defamation, I wrote that it was the most significant free speech case in decades. Not only was it the first time in history that the offence of defamation was facing a frontal constitutional challenge, but also, at the time, the freedom of speech under the Constitution was at a crossroads.

The celebrated holding in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, striking down Section 66A of the IT Act related to ostensibly offensive messages being sent over computer systems, had raised hopes that the Supreme Court was entering a new era of speech-protective jurisprudence, and closely reasoned, well-analysed constitutional judgments. Those hopes had been put on the backburner with Devidas Tuljapurkar, a shoddy, nearly unintelligible judgment, which had created a new standard of obscenity for “historically respectable figures”, out of thin air.

The decision in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India was important not only for all the newspapers, journalists and other speakers facing the threat of criminal defamation from politicians and corporations (at one time, The Hindu had more than a hundred criminal defamation cases against it in Tamil Nadu), but also for the future direction of free speech in India.

A bleak history

On Friday, the Supreme Court settled the question. In another shoddy and almost completely unintelligible judgment, written by the same bench that had decided Tuljapurkar (Justices Misra and Pant), the Court upheld criminal defamation. It is now becoming increasingly clear that Shreya Singhal was a rare exception, a momentary reprieve in the bleak history of free speech at the bar of the Indian Supreme Court.

The Court that decided Subramanian Swamy is the same court that upheld blasphemy law and the law of sedition by raising the bogies of religious riots and civil war respectively. It is the same court that 50 years ago, upheld the ban on Lady Chatterley’s Lover by upbraiding DH Lawrence for being a shallow writer. The same court that, a few years later, punished Communist leader EMS Namboodiripad for daring to suggest that the judiciary was driven by class interests. The same court that, in 1970, upheld pre-censorship of films on the ground that the “surrealism” of cinema would have too great an impact on an Indian audience congenitally unable to control itself in the face of provocation. And the same court that upheld the ban on Kannada writer Baragur Ramachandrappa’s book on Saint Basaveshwara, by stating that nobody had the right to hurt another’s feelings.

This is the court that is intensely hostile to the freedom of speech, whose fear at the anarchic, disordered nature of uncontrolled, free speech is almost palpable. It is the court that regularly channels the famous Justice Krishna Iyer, who once wrote:

“...essentially, good government necessitates peace and security and whoever violates by bombs or books societal tranquillity will become target of legal interdict by the State.”

The case against criminal defamation was – and continues to be – very simple. Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits only “reasonable” restrictions upon the freedom of speech. For a law to be reasonable, it must demonstrate a degree of proportionality between the restriction, and the goal that is sought to be achieved. Criminal defamation fails the proportionality test, in general terms, as well as in the specific legal regime set up by Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

Private wrongs

In general, criminal defamation is disproportionate because it uses the criminal law to prosecute a wrong that is purely private in nature. A private wrong is one that is purely between the offender and her victim, and has no implications for the society at large. For example, if I fail to control my dog, and it bites you, then you may sue me for compensation in a civil court. Society, the state, and the criminal law have nothing to do with it. However, if I murder a person, then it is not just about one individual taking the life of another, but has ramifications for public peace, order and security. This is why murder is a criminal offence, involves a term in jail, and is prosecuted by the state.

When defamation was first criminalised in medieval England, it had a public purpose. People vindicated insults to their honour by fighting it out in a duel. It was to suppress this kind of self-help regime, and assure people that they did not need to ventilate their grievances with swords and pistols, that defamation was criminalised. This is not medieval England, however, and we no longer settle our differences by challenging each other to duels. At this point, the sole purpose of criminal defamation is to protect private reputations. This makes criminalisation (with a jail term to boot) a public law remedy for a private wrong, and therefore, disproportionate.

The Supreme Court deals with this problem by tritely observing that since society is an aggregate of individuals, a wrong against one is a wrong against the society. This, of course, makes no sense, since by such logic, I should be criminally prosecuted for having negligently let my dog bite you. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, makes no effort to explain why, with the existence of a regime of civil defamation law, the added severity of criminal punishment is also proportionate and reasonable.

Honest mistakes

Specifically, Section 499 does not allow for a defence of honest mistake. To escape criminal liability, I must either show that my statement is true and for the public good (this additional requirement is not present in civil defamation), or that it was an opinion, voiced in good faith, about a public issue (there are other defences that are not relevant for our purpose). However, if I make a factually incorrect statement, I have no defence, even if I can show that I took all reasonable steps to verify its accuracy.

Ever since the famous judgment of the American Supreme Court more than fifty years ago, in New York Times vs Sullivan, constitutional courts all over the world have held that such a standard is simply inconsistent with a strong free speech right, and invariably chills speech. Even the Indian Supreme Court accepted this 22 years ago, in a case called R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu.

Both New York Times v Sullivan and R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu were decided in the context of civil defamation, which is much less harsh or onerous than criminal defamation. If a civil defamation regime that does not allow for honest mistakes is unconstitutional, then surely a criminal defamation regime that follows suit is unconstitutional as well!

Unfortunately, the court has somehow managed to miss this crucial point altogether. The judgment seems to be entirely unaware of the bizarre legal situation that results where the same statement can pass the tests of civil defamation, but fail the test of criminal defamation. We get no analysis of how this contradictory position can be resolved.

A depressing moment

Instead, what we do get is 268 pages of endless quotations, extracts from judgments, and groundless assertions. The court spends reams of pages talking about the importance of “reputation”, how it is a “facet” of Article 21 of the Constitution, and how freedom of speech must be “balanced” against the right to reputation. However, the two key issues outlined in this article – criminalisation of private wrongs and liability for honest mistakes – receive cursory to no treatment.

Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India is a depressing moment for free speech lawyers and activists. It is also (yet another) depressing moment for civil rights lawyers and activists, since it marks a continuing trend – that arguably began with Koushal vs Naz regarding the criminalisation of homosexuality – where two-judge benches decide important civil rights cases (notwithstanding the constitutional injunction that important constitutional cases should be decided by a bench of at least five judges). These cases invariably side with the state against individual rights, constrict the scope of rights, and take the form of opaque, almost unreadable judgments. It is the very antithesis of what a thriving constitutional culture ought to be. May it end soon.

And the next time we train our guns at the government for violating our fundamental rights, perhaps we should also make it clear that most of those violations have received the sanction and imprimatur of the Supreme Court.

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

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

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