MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

FINAL SUBMISSION

DECRIMINALIZING DEFAMATION-CONSTITUIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Submitted to Submitted by
Prof. Milind Gawai Parth Khandelwal
2016-032

3nd Semester
B.A.LLB.
1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. RESEARCH QUESTION 4

3. SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF RESEARCH 4

4. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 19: FREEDOM OF SPEECH & 4

EXPRESSION

5. DEFAMATION 6

6. 66A OF IT ACT, 2000 6

7. EXPLORING THE PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS OF 8

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEFAMATION
CONCLUSION

8. SUGGESTIONS 10

9. CONCLUSIONS 10

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 11

2
 DECRIMINALIZING DEFAMATION-CONSTITUIONAL PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION
The large-scale abuse of defamation laws particularly by the leaders of political parties is a matter of
serious concern now-a-days. A large number of cases are being filed on the basis of statements made
in the press by political leaders. Such complainant claims to be a ‘person aggrieved’ offended by the
statement given by a political or social leader against their leader. Such statement is being taken up
as a ground for prosecuting the political or religious leaders. Recently, a number of cases have been
filed against Baba Ramdev, a religious leader, for giving statement against Rajiv Gandhi with the
reference to the Dalits.1 Recently, Goa police has booked a young shipping professional for allegedly
posting of comments against BJP leader, Mr. Narendra Modi on Facebook.2 A senior congress leader,
Digvijay Singh was prosecuted in similar way at several places in India for the alleged defamatory
remarks against Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh as well leaders of Bhartiya Janata Party3 and latest was
AIB who got a legal trouble for posting joke on prime minister Modi.4

International human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
guarantee the right to free expression. The preamble of the UDHR states that freedom of speech is
one of the highest aspirations of common people5, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information through
any media and regardless of frontiers.6
While in India ‘right to freedom and expression’ is in article 19 of Indian constitution.7

1
One India, Baba Ramdev Sued For Rs 1000 Crore | Rahul Gandhi Honeymoon | Dalit Women | Lok Sabha Election
2014 Www.Oneindia.Com (2014), Http://Www.Oneindia.Com/India/Rahul-Gandhi-Honeymoon-Remark-Ramdev-
Rs-1000-Crore-Defamation-Case-Lse-1444879.Html (Last Visited Jul 18, 2017).
2
Ht Correspondent None, Facebook Trouble: 10 Cases Of Arrests Under Sec 66a Of It Act
Http://Www.Hindustantimes.Com/ (2015), Http://Www.Hindustantimes.Com/India/Facebook-Trouble-10-Cases-Of-
Arrests-Under-Sec-66a-Of-It-Act/Story-4xkp9ejjr6yoyrc2ruumdn.Html (Last Visited Jul 21, 2017).
3
Pti, Digvijay Singh Flays Filing Of Cases Over Anti- Narendra Modi Remarks On Social Media The Economic
Times (2014), Http://Economictimes.Indiatimes.Com/News/Politics-And-Nation/Digvijay-Singh-Flays-Filing-Of-
Cases-Over-Anti-Narendra-Modi-Remarks-On-Social-Media/Articleshow/35620003.Cms (Last Visited Jul 19,
2017).
4
Bt Online, Meme On Pm Narendra Modi Puts Aib, Tanmay Bhatt In Legal Trouble; Mumbai Police Files Fir
Business News - Latest Stock Market And Economy News India, Http://Www.Businesstoday.In/Buzztop/Buzztop-
Feature/Meme-On-Pm-Narendra-Modi-Puts-Aib-Tanmay-Bhatt-In-Legal-Trouble-Mumbai-Police-Files-
Fir/Story/256488.Html (Last Visited Jul 21, 2017).
5
Preamble, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, United Nations, Adopted And Proclaimed By General Assembly
Resolution 217 A (Iii) Of 10 December 1948
6
Right To Freedom Of Expression Shall Include Freedom To Seek, Receive And Impart Information And Ideas Of All
Kinds, Regardless Of Frontiers” Article 19 (2), Iccpr, 1966
7
The Constitution Of India, 1950
3
The Constitution of India provides to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(1)(a). However, this freedom is not absolute and can be restricted on the satisfaction of
two conditions: one, the restriction must fall under one of the grounds mentioned under Article 19(2)
(defamation is one ground) and two, the restriction itself must be a ‘reasonable’ restriction.8
This study is focused on the relationship between the right to free speech and the right to reputation.
It shall explore the theoretical and jurisprudential basis of freedom of speech. This study shall
basically focus on defamation and how it has developed in today’s society in terms of its use.

RESEARCH QUESTION
How has judiciary taken article 19 right to free speech and expression in terms of defamation?

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF RESEARCH

Thus, researcher will be focussing in the topic of decriminalising defamation due to its Far-reaching
consequences. For this researcher will be illuminating with the help of constitutional meaning of
right provided and criminal aspect of the same and researcher will also be focussing on the topic
through case studies most importantly case filed that’s is, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India9
and will point out the flaws which needs to be taken into consideration for revamping the law’s
interpretation.

1. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 19: FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION

Freedom of expression is one of the most important pillars of contemporary democracies. As has
been laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India10 regarding right to free speech and expression11
it shows how important free speech and expression is not only to citizens for making voices heard
but state to hear them and to use them as a review of their work and also shows the significance of
this right.

The Constitution of India provides to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression under

8
Article 19(1)(A), Constitution Of India, 1950
9
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India [W.P. (CRl) 184 of 2014]
10
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
11
“democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only corrective of governmental
action in a democratic set up. If democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every
citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his
right of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential. Manifestly, free debate
and open discussion, in the most comprehensive sense, is not possible unless there is a free and independent press.
Indeed, the true measure of the health and vigour of a democracy is always to be found in its press. Look at its
newspapers-do they reflect diversity of opinions and views, do they contain expression of dissent and criticism against
governmental policies and actions, or do they obsequiously sing the praises of the government or lionize or deify the
ruler. The newspapers are the index of the true character of the government-whether it is democratic or authoritarian.”
4
Article 19(1)(a). However, this freedom is not absolute and can be restricted on the satisfaction of
two conditions: one, the restriction must fall under one of the grounds mentioned under Article 19(2)
(defamation is one ground) and two, the restriction itself must be a ‘reasonable’ restriction. The test
of ‘reasonableness’ has been laid down in the case of Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P.12

The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is regarded as one of the most basic
elements of a healthy democracy for it allows its citizens to participate fully and effectively in the
social and political process of the country.13 Freedom of speech provides opportunity to express one’s
belief and show political attitudes. It ultimately results in the welfare of the society and state. Thus,
freedom of speech provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable
balance between stability and social change.14

“the State has a duty to protect itself against certain unlawful actions and, therefore, may enact laws
which would ensure such protection.”15 But as stated in Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. vs Home
Secretary and Ors reasonable restrictions are applicable.16

The Court provided the test of `proximate and direct nexus with the expression’ as laid down in S.
Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574.17

In 2006, the Court has held that the reasonableness of a restriction must be checked against the
fundamental right that it restricts and not the ground on which it was imposed.18 and a test for
reasonability in M.P JAIN19 on two parts.20
It is difficult to give an exact definition to the word reasonable. There is no definite test to adjudge
reasonableness of a restriction. However, the Courts have laid down a few broad propositions in this

12
“the phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should
not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word “reasonable”
implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates”.
13
Id.
14
Id.
13
The State Of West Bengal Vs Subodh Gopal Bose 1954 Air 92, 1954 Scr 587
14
The Right That Springs From Article 19(1)(A) Is Not Absolute And Unchecked. There Cannot Be Any Liberty
Absolute In Nature And Uncontrolled In Operation So As To Confer A Right Wholly Free From Any Restraint. Had
There Been No Restraint, The Rights And Freedoms May Become Synonymous With Anarchy And Disorder.
15
It Was Held That The Court Has To Keep In Mind That The Restriction Should Be Founded On The Principle Of Least
Invasiveness I.E. The Restriction Should Be Imposed In A Manner And To The Extent Which Is Unavoidable In A
Given. A Person Is Entitled To Right To Reputation And Not Defamed Situation. The Court Would Also Take Into
Consideration Whether The Anticipated Event Would Or Would Not Be Intrinsically Dangerous To Public Interest.
16
Lakshmi Ganesh Films And Ors. Vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. On 21 June, 2006 (4) Ald 374
17
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed. 2014).
20
As This Right To Free Speech And Expression Is Available In Article 19 Of Constitution It Also Has Reasonable
Restrictions Applicable On It And The Two Tests Are Whether It Is Reasonable; And Whether It Is For A Purpose
Mentioned In The Clause Under Which The Restriction Is Being Imposed

5
 21
respect. This right to speech is curtailed via penal code which lays it down under the crime of
defamation which researcher will further elaborate.

2. DEFAMATION
Defamation according to IPC is “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs
or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to
harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such
person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”22

Defamation is both crime as well as a tort. Just as every person possesses the freedom of speech and
expression, every person also possesses a right to his reputation. Hence, nobody can so use his
freedom of speech or expression as to injure another’s reputation. Laws penalizing defamation do
not, therefore, constitute infringement of freedom of speech and expression.23

2.1. HOW REASONABLE IS THE RESTRICTION?

This law was enacted in 1860 by the British, and the “standard of intelligent care and deliberation”
prevailing by rulers in 1860 cannot be the
same standard that an independent and ‘free’ society should/can be subjected to. As is generally
known, punishments in those days were much harsher.24

But since we are living today in a more mature society, reasonable restrictions should take into
consideration “the prevailing conditions including the social values whose needs are sought to be
satisfied by means of the restrictions”, as held by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. We are surely suffering from a
colonial hangover by retaining criminal defamation.25

3. 66A OF IT ACT, 2000

Section 66A26 provides punishment for sending offensive messages through communication

19
The Court Shall First Ask What Is The Sweep Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed, Then The Next Question To Be
Asked Would Be, Whether The Impugned Law Imposes A Reasonable Restriction Falling Within The Scope Of Clause
(2). However, If The Right Sought To Be Canvassed Does Not Fall Within The Sweep Of The Fundamental Rights
But Is Mere Concomitant Or Adjunct Of That Right, Then The Test Which It Would Be Required To Satisfy For Its
Constitutional Validity Is One Of Reasonableness.
20
Section 499, Indian Penal Code
23
Ratanlal Ranchhoddas et al., The Indian penal code (2016)
21
Lakshmi Ganesh Films V. Government Of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (4) ALD 374
25
Ministry Of Information And Broadcasting V. Cricket Association Of Bengal
26
"Any Person Who Sends, By Means Of A Computer Resource Or A Communication Device –
A) Any Information That Is Grossly Offensive Or Has Menacing Character; Or
6
services.27
Section 66A is the section that criminalizes the sending of offensive messages using a computer,
computer network or computer resource located in India. It has been construed in a very broad
manner covering almost anything which one might regard offensive. Such a construction would bring
a halt on the Freedom of Speech and Expression and would in fact deter free speech and thus, bring
about a chilling effect on speech. Further, the misuse of this section has been widely known and
popularized by the media. The Supreme Court of India considering all these aspects has
decriminalized Section 66A of the IT Act.28

3.1. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill which introduced the act read as follows
in Para 3 of the act.29
The contention of the petitioner was that Section 66A did not act as a remedy or a safeguard against
any new crime that emerged as a result of information technology. The petitioners interpreted the
usability of Section 66A in light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons when Sections 66B to 67C
are good enough to deal with the crimes covered under Section 66A.30 However, the Supreme Court
held that declaring the section unconstitutional merely on ground of it being violative or opposed
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is beyond the scope of Judicial Scrutiny and Activism as
judiciary can declare a law constitutional only if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution31
and hence, this would not be a valid ground for contending validity of a law in a court.

B) Any Information Which He Knows To Be False, But For The Purpose Of Causing Annoyance, Inconvenience,
Danger, Obstruction, Insult, Injury, Criminal Intimidation, Enmity, Hatred, Or Ill Will, Persistently Makes By Making
Use Of Such Computer Resource Or A Communication Device,
C) Any Electronic Mail Or Electronic Mail Message For The Purpose Of Causing Annoyance Or Inconvenience Or To
Deceive Or To Mislead The Addressee Or Recipient About The Origin Of Such Messages Shall Be Punishable With
Imprisonment For A Term Which May Extend To Two Three Years And With Fine.
Explanation: For The Purposes Of This Section, Terms "Electronic Mail" And "Electronic Mail Message" Means A
Message Or Information Created Or Transmitted Or Received On A Computer, Computer System, Computer Resource
Or Communication Device Including Attachments In Text, Image, Audio, Video And Any Other Electronic Record,
Which May Be Transmitted With The Message."
The Information Technology Act Came Into Force In 2000, But Section 66a Was Added As An Amendment In 2008,
Which Was Notified In February 2009.23
27
Http://Www.Thehindu.Com/News/National/All-You-Need-To-Know-About-Section-66a-
Of-The-It-Act/Article7027459.Ece
25
Sameer Avasarala, An Analysis Of Validity Of Section 66a Of It Act, 2000 In Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India,
International Journal Of Law And Legal Jurisprudence
26
“A Rapid Increase In The Use Of Computer And Internet Has Given Rise To New Forms Of Crimes Like Publishing
Sexually Explicit Materials In Electronic Form, Video Voyeurism And Breach Of Confidentiality And Leakage Of
Data By Intermediary, Ecommerce Frauds Like Personation Commonly Known As Phishing, Identity Theft And
Offensive Messages Through Communication Services. So, Penal Provisions Are Required To Be Included In The
Information Technology Act, The Indian Penal Code, The Indian Evidence Act And The Code Of Criminal Procedure
To Prevent Such Crimes.”
27
Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India [Air 2005 Sc 1523]
28
Keshavananda Bharti V. State Of Kerala (1973) 4 Scc 225)
7
But after looking in to the matter in detail court came to decision S66A has been struck down; good
news: S79(3) and its rules have been read down; and bad news: S69A has been upheld. When it
comes to each section, the impact of this judgment can either be read optimistically or pessimistically,
and therefore we must wait for constitutional experts to weigh in on the ripple effect that this order
will produce in other areas of free speech jurisprudence in India. But even as free speech activists
celebrate Shreya Singhal, some are bemoaning the judgment as throwing the baby away with the
bathwater, and wish to reintroduce another variant of Section 66A. Thus, we must remain vigilant.32

4. EXPLORING THE PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

DEFAMATION

4.1. R. Rajagopal V State of Tamil Nadu33

This case pertains to constitutionality of civil defamation. In this case, Supreme Court of India
mentioned about one of the landmark judgment of the US Supreme Court in New York Times v.
Sullivan34 stated that government official who is on his duty can recover damages only when the
truth claim is false and reckless regard for truth. Through this case, the judges examined the
relationship between free speech and civil defamation.35

The court held that common law defamation stood unreasonably restricted under Article 19(1) (a)
because it thrust undue advantage of no fault liability. The primary assault against Section 499 was
that by criminalizing what is basically a private wrong. The Section added upto limitation upon free
discourse.36

4.2. Subramanian Swamy V. Union of India

Subramanian Swamy’s petition to decriminalise defamation has been joined in the Supreme Court
by concurring petitions from Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal.37 Defamation is criminalised by
sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Swamy and his unlikely cohorts want
the Supreme Court to declare that these criminal defamation provisions interfere with the right to

29
Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India [Air 2005 Sc 1523]
30
1995 AIR 264 (1994)
31
New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
35
R. Rajagopal V. State Of Tamil Nadu,1995 AIR 264 (1994)
36
Gautam Bhatia, The Supreme Court's Criminal Defamation Judgment: Glaringly Flawed
Http://Www.Huffingtonpost.In/Gautam-Bhatia-/The-Supreme-Courts-Crimin_B_9976410.Html
37
Bhadra Sinha, Supreme Court Upholds Defamation Law Contested By Rahul, Kejriwal, Swamy, Hindustan Times,
Http://Www.Hindustantimes.Com/India/Supreme-Court-Cites-Right-To-Reputation-To-Uphold-Defamation-
Law/Story-Wlqoqt00l37nv5dgtrtvoj.Html
8
free speech and strike them down.38
Although news covering the case has kept eyes on the arguments of the 3 politicians, defamation
should not be the sole province of celebrities and the powerful. Unfortunately, criminal defamation
has become a new barrier in the world for media as it is used to hush journalists and activists. SLAPP
suits (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) are being increasingly used by large
corporations and MNC’s to hamper critics and opponents stand. SLAPP suits aren’t designed to
succeed – although they often do, they are intended to intimidate, harass, and outspend journalists
and activists into submission.39

The law of defamation rests on uncertain foundations. In medieval Europe defamation was dually
prosecuted by the Church as a sin equal to sexual immorality, and by secular courts for the threat of
violence that accompanied defamatory speech.40 These distinct concerns yielded a peculiar defence
which fused two elements: truth, which shielded the speaker from the sin of lying; and, the public
good, which protected the speaker from the charge of disrupting the public peace.41 This dual
formulation – truth and the public good– remains the primary defence to defamation today.

India does not have a strong ‘fair comment’ defence to protect speech that is neither true nor useful.
This shows censorship of speech that falls outside the bounds of social and moral.

Defamation law is also open to procedural misuse which maximises its harrassive effect. Since
speech that is published on the Internet or newspaper can be read almost anywhere this increasing
ambit of coverage of people among the masses.
The bench of Supreme Court decided to maintain constitutional validity of the country’s criminal
defamation laws, deciding that laws are not in disagreement with freedom of right to speech. The
decided judgment had put most of the politicians and the media figure on the rounded side. Some
even argued that it could hold back freedom of speech. It is clear from the announcement that there
has been a alarming effect on freedom of speech.42 They communicated that through their analysis,
there is a requirement of public for the loss of reputation they suffer and wanted to provide public
remedies for private wrongs. Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution stated reasonable restrictions
upon the freedom of speech, in the interests of defamation.43

38
Subramanian Swamy V. Union Of India [W.P. (Crl) 184 Of 2014]
39
Slapp Suit, Cornell Law University, Https://Www.Law.Cornell.Edu/Wex/Slapp_Suit
40
Bhairav Acharya, A Public Discussion On Criminal Defamation In India, Https://Cis-India.Org/Internet-
Governance/Blog/Decriminalising-Defamation-In-India.Pdf
41
Id.
42
K.V. Ramaniah v. Spl. P.P (1961) 1 CrLJ 601(AP)
43
Article 19(2), Constitution of India
9
But the Article does not say about the defamation whether it deals with criminal as well as civil
defamation. The word reasonable entails proportionality aspect in terms of relationship between the
degree to which freedom of speech contravened and the interest of the public at stake.

It has been logically deduced that mostly politicians are facing the criminal defamation case against
their opponents.44 the Supreme Court held Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC dealing with criminal
defamation as constitutionally valid.

4. SUGGESTION
There is a need for improvement in this context as it takes the basic human right to speech as it is
curtailed through biased action by the government. It is submitted that punishment provided in
criminal law is very harsh and invasive which is not proportionate to the harm caused due to
defamatory statement. The burden of the state is that this law should not be misused. Criminal
defamation is actually quick fix of a problem and such measure will always prove to be detrimental
in long turn. This law has been proven wrong under various principle that has laid down in the paper.
Hence, it is a strong call that criminal defamation should be decriminalised in order to safeguard
sanctity of criminal law as there is civil action available which is much more

CONCLUSION
There are myriad harms that flowing from over-criminalisation of defamation which has already been
analysed throughout this paper. In conclusion, it is submitted that defamation should be
decriminalised as it is greatly questioning justice system of India. This needs to be understood that
using criminal law, as a way to go about the matter leads to long-term damage which affect the
State’s ability to enforce criminal sanctions in cases where it is actually required to be used, making
it very important for the government to look into it and revise the legislation or penal code. Sections
499-500 of the IPC are fragments from India’s British ruled past that are inappropriate for a modern
democracy where we rule our own people and society has different perspective of civility. Action is
required just as it did in the case of section 66A of the IT Act, the time has come for the Supreme
Court to take a stand in defence of freedom of speech in India. It is really not necessary to put an
accused person in the case of defamation with hard-core criminals, when least alternative is available
– Civil remedy and even a mole becomes a molehill.

44
Supra, Note. 38
10
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

LAW

• Article 66A, IT act

This is important law which was scrapped as it had draconian and far-reaching impact on society
and community and went against right to speech and expression

• Section 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860

These sections are related to the defamation laws framed in India thus help in criminalizing
defamatory act.

• Article 19, Constitution of India

This is an important as it provides rights of people as to, right to free speech and expression’.

CASES

• Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India [W.P. (Crl) 184 of 2014]

This is a case which is fought in supreme court to decriminalize the defamation and to bring light to
the reasonable restrictions for better understanding.

• R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264

This section gives a thought provoking judgement as to how a civil defamation can act as a
limitation to right under constitution.

• Keshavananda Bharti V. State Of Kerala (1973) 4 Scc 225)

• New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
• Chintaman Rao V. State Of M.P 1978 Air 597, 1978 Scr (2) 621
• S. Rangarajan Etc Vs P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 Scr (2) 204, 1989 Scc (2) 574
• Lakshmi Ganesh Films V. Government Of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (4) ALD 374
These cases are important as they provide data regarding reasonable restrictions on fundamental
rights of people and how court handles such cases and how court deals with the issue of
defamation.

• Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India [Air 2005 Sc 1523]

This case is important as it deals with section 66A of IT act and helps in understanding why it was
11
 scrapped.

BOOK

• Mahendra pal singh, constitution of India (12 ed.)

• M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed.)
These books have been an important contribution as it provides data regarding the right of free
speech and expression and constitutional perspective of the same.

ARTICLES
• Jayant Sriram, SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A The Hindu (2015),
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/SC-strikes-down-
%E2%80%98draconian%E2%80%99-Section-66A/article10740659.ece (last visited Jul 22,
2017).
This is an important as it talks about the 66A which was recently scrapped by supreme court of
India and this article provides insights regarding the same.

• Aloke Tikku Hindustan Times, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law
http://www.hindustantimes.com/ (2016), http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/despite-
sc-order-thousands-booked-under-scrapped-section-66a-of-it-act/story-
DisRxFDBJTXvkz6ZW4fRHK.html (last visited Jul 23, 2017).
This is an important article as it displays how even after removal of section 66A of IT, act dead
cyber laws have held back a lot of cases.

• Five months after quashing Section 66A, Supreme Court suggests law to curb social media
misuse, Firstpost (2015), http://www.firstpost.com/india/five-months-after-quashing-section-
66a-supreme-court-suggests-law-to-curb-social-media-misuse-2382732.html (last visited Jul 21,
2017).
This is an important article as it provides data regarding the soundness of supreme court regarding
the right delivered under constitution.

• Dr. Monika Jain, DEFAMATION LAWS IN INDIA: UNIQUE INDICATION TO CURRENT

FOLDER OF SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA.
This is an important article as it provides details with regards to the case filed for the validity of
defamation and to understand the reasonability of the same. Thus, it helps in providing a detailed
case study for the same and defamation laws.
12
• Tanya singh & pramid kumar singh, Abuse of Defamation Laws in India: An Overview,
International Journal of Applied Research 2015 (2015).
This is an important article as it dives into the subtleties of defamation and the law concerning the
same as it talks about how and when someone is liable in the case of defamation.

• DECRIMINALIZATION OF DEFAMATION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS, Astha Saxena ,

http://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-
DEFAMATION-Astha-Saxena.pdf
In this paper, the author intends to examine the validity of criminalizing the offence of defamation
law. Since criminal sanctions are being used “to enforce morals, to provide social order and to
ensure good and fair justice system” but this has far reaching adverse effects, which has become
a debatable topic and created a great impact on criminal justice system of India. This indeed raises
question of legitimacy and sanctity of criminal sanctions which is actually seems to be disappeared
because of such over- criminalisation.

• THE COST OF REPUTATION: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEFAMATION, Santosh

Sigdel, http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/sigdel_santosh.pdf

This is an important paper as it provides an outer perspective of how important is right to speech
and expression and how is this right adjusted to reasonable restriction and what is the parameter
for those reasonable restrictions.

WEB-LINKS

• One India, Baba Ramdev Sued for Rs 1000 crore | Rahul Gandhi Honeymoon | Dalit Women |
Lok Sabha Election 2014 www.oneindia.com (2014), http://www.oneindia.com/india/rahul-
gandhi-honeymoon-remark-ramdev-rs-1000-crore-defamation-case-lse-1444879.html (last
visited Jul 18, 2017).

• HT Correspondent None, Facebook trouble: 10 cases of arrests under Sec 66A of IT Act
http://www.hindustantimes.com/ (2015), http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/facebook-
trouble-10-cases-of-arrests-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/story-4xKp9EJjR6YoyrC2rUUMDN.html
(last visited Jul 21, 2017).

• Pti, Digvijay Singh flays filing of cases over anti- Narendra Modi remarks on social media
13
 The Economic Times (2014), http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-
nation/digvijay-singh-flays-filing-of-cases-over-anti-narendra-modi-remarks-on-social-
media/articleshow/35620003.cms (last visited Jul 19, 2017).

• BT Online, Meme on PM Narendra Modi puts AIB, Tanmay Bhatt in legal trouble; Mumbai
Police files FIR Business News - Latest Stock Market and Economy News India,
http://www.businesstoday.in/buzztop/buzztop-feature/meme-on-pm-narendra-modi-puts-aib-
tanmay-bhatt-in-legal-trouble-mumbai-police-files-fir/story/256488.html (last visited Jul 21,
2017).

These links are important as they provide data about how significant the problem is and how it
has affected people people even in insignificant circumstances.

14