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 

Not just for experts: How videography is poised for a disruption

Digital solutions are making sure it’s easier than ever to express your creativity in moving images.

Where was the last time you saw art? Chances are on a screen, either on your phone or your computer. Stunning photography and intricate doodles are a frequent occurrence in the social feeds of many. That’s the defining feature of art in the 21st century - it fits in your pocket, pretty much everyone’s pocket. It is no more dictated by just a few elite players - renowned artists, museum curators, art critics, art fair promoters and powerful gallery owners. The digital age is spawning creators who choose to be defined by their creativity more than their skills. The negligible incubation time of digital art has enabled experimentation at staggering levels. Just a few minutes of browsing on the online art community, DeviantArt, is enough to gauge the scope of what digital art can achieve.

Sure enough, in the 21st century, entire creative industries are getting democratised like never before. Take photography, for example. Digital photography enabled everyone to capture a memory, and then convert it into personalised artwork with a plethora of editing options. Apps like Instagram reduced the learning curve even further with its set of filters that could lend character to even unremarkable snaps. Prisma further helped to make photos look like paintings, shaving off several more steps in the editing process. Now, yet another industry is showing similar signs of disruption – videography.

Once burdened by unreliable film, bulky cameras and prohibitive production costs, videography is now accessible to anyone with a smartphone and a decent Internet bandwidth. A lay person casually using social media today has so many video types and platforms to choose from - looping Vine videos, staccato Musical.lys, GIFs, Instagram stories, YouTube channels and many more. Videos are indeed fast emerging as the next front of expression online, and so are the digital solutions to support video creation.

One such example is Vizmato, an app which enables anyone with a smartphone to create professional-looking videos minus the learning curve required to master heavy, desktop software. It makes it easy to shoot 720p or 1080p HD videos with a choice of more than 40 visual effects. This fuss- free app is essentially like three apps built into one - a camcorder with live effects, a feature-rich video editor and a video sharing platform.

With Vizmato, the creative process starts at the shooting stage itself as it enables live application of themes and effects. Choose from hip hop, noir, haunted, vintage and many more.

The variety of filters available on Vizmato
The variety of filters available on Vizmato

Or you can simply choose to unleash your creativity at the editing stage; the possibilities are endless. Vizmato simplifies the core editing process by making it easier to apply cuts and join and reverse clips so your video can flow exactly the way you envisioned. Once the video is edited, you can use a variety of interesting effects to give your video that extra edge.

The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.
The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.

You can even choose music and sound effects to go with your clip; there’s nothing like applause at the right moment, or a laugh track at the crack of the worst joke.

Or just annotated GIFs customised for each moment.

Vizmato is the latest offering from Global Delight, which builds cross-platform audio, video and photography applications. It is the Indian developer that created award-winning iPhone apps such as Camera Plus, Camera Plus Pro and the Boom series. Vizmato is an upgrade of its hugely popular app Game Your Video, one of the winners of the Macworld Best of Show 2012. The overhauled Vizmato, in essence, brings the Instagram functionality to videos. With instant themes, filters and effects at your disposal, you can feel like the director of a sci-fi film, horror movie or a romance drama, all within a single video clip. It even provides an in-built video-sharing platform, Popular, to which you can upload your creations and gain visibility and feedback.

Play

So, whether you’re into making the most interesting Vines or shooting your take on Ed Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’, experience for yourself how Vizmato has made video creation addictively simple. Android users can download the app here and iOS users will have their version in January.

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