SC judge urges decriminalisation of criminal defamation amid rising misuse
Guwahati: A Supreme Court judge on Monday expressed concern over the increasing misuse of criminal defamation law by private individuals and political parties, suggesting it may be time to decriminalise such cases.
“I think the time has come to decriminalise this,” remarked Justice M.M. Sundresh while heading a bench hearing a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs The Wire, and a journalist seeking to quash summons issued in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.
Justice Sundresh’s comment reflects the apex court’s growing unease over the frequent use of criminal defamation complaints to settle personal or political scores, rather than protect public interest.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, highlighted multiple instances where Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had approached the Supreme Court seeking relief from summons issued in criminal defamation cases filed by private individuals. The bench subsequently tagged the Foundation’s petition with Gandhi’s batch of cases.
In recent months, various benches of the Supreme Court have stayed summons in criminal defamation cases, often cautioning that courts should not be used as forums for political battles. For instance, in January, the court stayed proceedings against Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Separate petitions followed regarding his alleged statements during the Bharat Jodo Yatra and other events. Similarly, proceedings against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over his ‘scorpion on Shivling’ comment allegedly targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi were also stayed.
Justice Sundresh’s observations align with previous judgments emphasising that criminal defamation should not be exploited for personal or political vendettas. The apex court, in the 2016 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India case, had upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation as a “reasonable restriction” on free speech.
Yet, the current remarks reopen debate on whether defamation by private individuals should constitute a criminal offence at all, especially when it does not serve the public interest.
In its March 2025 ruling in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, the Supreme Court noted that words or acts claimed to be defamatory “must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.” The judgment likened a ‘reasonable person’ to “the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus.”
Justice Sundresh’s remarks mark the latest in a series of observations by the Supreme Court signalling a cautious approach to criminal defamation, highlighting the need to balance protection of reputation with freedom of expression in India’s democratic discourse.