Menu

Juneja Legal

The Law Firm

header photo

Freedom of Speech, Defamation and Chilling Effect

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a). It is widely regarded as an essential feature of a democratic society, as it enables citizens to express their opinions, dissent, criticism, and grievances against the government and public officials. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.

The role of courts in India is to protect and uphold the freedom of speech and expression, and to strike down any law or action that violates or abridges this right. The courts have also interpreted the scope and content of this right in various cases, and have laid down certain principles and guidelines to balance it with other competing interests.

One of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the subject of freedom of speech and expression is Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), where the Court held that a law that imposed a ban on the entry and circulation of a journal in a state was unconstitutional, as it violated Article 19(1)(a). The Court observed that "freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which is ensured by the freedom of circulation". The Court also held that the expression "public order" in Article 19(2) was a narrower concept than "law and order", and that only those restrictions that were necessary to prevent public disorder could be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression.

Another important judgment of the Supreme Court on this subject is Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972), where the Court struck down a government policy that restricted the import of newsprint and allocated it among newspapers in a discriminatory manner. The Court held that this policy violated Article 19(1)(a), as it affected the freedom of the press, which was an integral part of freedom of speech and expression. The Court observed that "the press has a very significant role to play in a democratic society. It has to inform, educate and enlighten people on various issues affecting them. It has to expose corruption, maladministration, and misuse of power. It has to provide a platform for diverse views and opinions. It has to foster public debate and discussion on matters of public interest. It has to act as a watchdog over the government and other public authorities".

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court on this subject is Ram v. Union of India (2020), where the Court quashed a batch of criminal defamation cases filed against journalists and media houses for defaming the then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in respect of her conduct in the discharge of her public functions. The Court explained that public officials were subjected to a higher threshold of criticism by virtue of being in public office and that in all cases, there was no defamation against the state per se. The Court also observed that "the right to free speech cannot be curtailed further" by invoking criminal defamation laws, which were anachronistic and had a chilling effect on free expression.

Another Judgment in Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): This case challenged a law that regulated the number and price of pages in newspapers. The Court held that this law violated freedom of speech and expression as it affected the circulation and content of newspapers. The Court also held that freedom of press is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression.

In case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case challenged a law that empowered the government to impound the passport of any person without giving any reason. The Court held that this law violated freedom of speech and expression as it restricted the right to travel abroad and exchange views with others. The Court also held that freedom of speech and expression is not confined to Article 19 (1) (a) but also flows from Article 21 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty.

In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): This case challenged a ban on a film that depicted inter-caste marriage and communal violence. The Court held that this ban violated freedom of speech and expression as it curtailed the right to receive and impart information and ideas. The Court also held that public order cannot be a ground for imposing prior restraint on expression unless there is a clear and present danger.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case challenged a provision in the Information Technology Act that criminalized sending offensive messages online. The Court held that this provision violated freedom of speech and expression as it was vague, overbroad, and had a chilling effect on online communication. The Court also held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to access information on the internet.

The Chilling Effect Doctrine and the Supreme Court of India

The chilling effect doctrine is a legal concept that refers to the situation where a law or a policy discourages or restrains the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech or expression. The doctrine originated in the United States, where it has been used to challenge laws that impose prior restraints, censorship, or criminal sanctions on speech.

In India, the chilling effect doctrine has been invoked in several cases involving the freedom of speech and expression, especially in relation to criminal defamation, sedition, and contempt of court. The Supreme Court of India has recognized that these laws can have a chilling effect on free speech and has tried to balance them with the right to reputation and public order.

However, the Supreme Court has also been criticized for not adequately applying the chilling effect doctrine and for upholding laws that stifle dissent and criticism. For instance, in 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, despite acknowledging that it can have a chilling effect on free speech. The court justified this by saying that the right to reputation is also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19 (2).

Similarly, in 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes any speech or acts that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government. The court said that sedition is necessary to protect national security and sovereignty and that it does not have a chilling effect on free speech as long as it is applied only to cases involving incitement to violence or public disorder.

The Supreme Court has also been reluctant to apply the chilling effect doctrine to cases involving contempt of court, which empowers the court to punish any speech or act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court or interferes with its administration of justice. The court has maintained that contempt of court is essential to uphold the dignity and majesty of the judiciary and to ensure public confidence in its functioning. The court has also said that contempt of court does not violate free speech as long as it is exercised with caution and restraint.

The chilling effect doctrine is an important tool to safeguard the freedom of speech and expression in a democracy. However, its application in India has been inconsistent and inadequate. The Supreme Court of India needs to revisit its approach to the chilling effect doctrine and strike a better balance between free speech and other competing interests.

 

Defamation vs Freedom of Speech

 

The aspect of defamation vs freedom of speech is a contentious one, as it involves a clash between two competing rights: the right to reputation and dignity, and the right to free expression. The Indian law recognizes both civil and criminal remedies for defamation, but there has been a growing demand for decriminalizing defamation, as it is seen as a tool for harassment and intimidation by powerful individuals and entities against journalists, activists, whistleblowers, and critics. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), but has also cautioned that they should be applied with care and caution, and only when there is a clear intention to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that such harm will be caused by the impugned statement.

The courts have also recognized certain defenses for defamation, such as truth, fair comment, privilege, consent, and apology. The defense of truth is available when the statement is made for the public good or relates to public conduct or public question. The defense of fair comment is available when the statement is an expression of opinion based on facts that are true or privileged. The defense of privilege is available when the statement is made on certain occasions or platforms where there is an overriding public interest or duty to communicate such information.

Defamation is a civil or criminal wrong that involves harming the reputation or dignity of another person by making false or malicious statements about him or her. Defamation can be a ground for restricting freedom of speech under Article 19 (2) as it affects the rights or interests of others.

However, defamation cannot be used as a tool to stifle legitimate criticism or dissent. The Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to balance defamation and freedom
of speech, such as:

- The statement must be false and defamatory;
- The statement must be made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth;
- The statement must cause actual harm or injury to reputation;
- The statement must not fall within any exception or defense such as truth, fair comment, public interest, etc.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that public figures have a lower threshold for defamation as they have voluntarily exposed themselves to public scrutiny and criticism.

In conclusion, freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, but it is not absolute and can be restricted on certain grounds such as defamation. Defamation is the act of harming the reputation of another person by making false statements in public. Defamation can be civil or criminal, depending on whether the remedy sought is monetary compensation or imprisonment. Criminal defamation has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on free speech, but it has also been criticized for having a chilling effect on free speech and dissent. A chilling effect is a negative deterrence that prevents people from exercising their right to free speech and expression for fear of legal consequences. Therefore, there is a need to balance the right to free speech and expression with the right to reputation and to ensure that criminal defamation laws are not misused to suppress criticism, opposition, or public interest.

 

Go Back

Comment

Know your Rights - Juneja Leal is here to help