Subramanian Swamy Vs Union Of India: Criminal Defamation

Court- Supreme Court of India.

Hon’ble Bench – Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra and Hon’ble Justice Prafulla Chandra Pant.


The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Subramanian Swamy along with other petitioners challenging the Constitutional validity of Criminal defamation under Section 499 (defamation) and Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition was filed because the petitioners argued that it curtailed their Fundamental Right of ‘Right to freedom of speech and expression’ under Article 19(1)(a).


  • Whether Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC are Constitutionally valid?
  • Whether ‘Right to life’ includes ‘Right to Reputation’?
  • Whether Defamation under Section 499 contravenes Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?


The constitutionality of the aforesaid provisions has been challenged on many a score and from many an angle by different counsel appearing for the writ petitioners who belong to different walks of life. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel can be noted down as follows;

  • Firstly, the basic idea of Article19(1)(a) is to provide freedom of speech and expression, which are the two most essential elements in maintaining check and balance in a parliamentary democracy. The idea behind Article 19(2), which levies “reasonable restrictions” on Article19(1)(a), is only to preserve the interests of the state and the public in general. In addition to this if there is any case of defamation among any private individuals it must be dealt with as the “Law of Torts” as it is a civil wrong or a tort. Therefore, Article 19(2) cannot be regarded as the source of authority for Section 499 of IPC which makes defamation of any person an offence.
  • It has to be kept in mind that fundamental rights are conferred in the public interest and defamation of any person by another person is unconnected with the fundamental right conferred in the public interest by Article 19(1)(a) and, therefore, Section 499 is outside the scope of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Right to one’s reputation which has been held to be a facet of Article 21 is basically vis-à-vis the State, and hence, Article 19(2) cannot be invoked to serve the private interest of an individual.
  • The Section 499 of IPC is an inhibition on the right to freedom of speech and expression, hence cannot be regarded as a reasonable restriction in a democratic republic. An arbitrary restriction on the fundamental right that goes beyond public interest, cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction.
  • Reputation can be dear to an individual for societal acceptance and self-satisfaction, it makes an individual proud to protect his self-interests but that cannot be regarded as a justification to whittle down freedom of speech and expression which sub serves the public interest.
  • On analyzing Sections 499 and 500 IPC and Section 199 CrPC, it is manifest that there is presumption of facts as a matter of law and that itself makes the provision arbitrary and once the foundation is unreasonable and arbitrary, the provisions are meant to be called “ultra vires” Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Also Read  Union Of India v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors


Submissions in defence were given by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General of India and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General along with various prominent lawyers of the country. The following arguments were put forward by the learned counsels against the claims of the petitioners;

  • The Article19(1)(a) dealing with freedom of speech, the most robust right but nonetheless, not heedless or unrestricted. In a country like the USA where freedom of speech and expression is considered to be the most celebrated one, it is not absolute in nature. The Article19(2) must be read in reference to freedom of speech and not in isolation. Article 19(2) must be considered as an integral part of the right to free speech and expression as Article 19(1)(a) is not a standalone right and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is an unbridled right to free, much less defamatory speech.
  • When the grounds of exception under Article 19(2) are analyzed, each of them upheld public interest and so does defamation, for its principal object is to preserve the reputation as a shared value of the collective.
  • The legal scholars have made a distinction between private and public wrong and it has been clearly stated that public wrong affects not only the victim but at the same time injures the public and ultimately concerns the polity as a whole. So, considering this, criminalization of defamation or damage to reputation is meant to sub serve basic harmony in the polity.
  • The words slander and libel were originally a part of the Constitution and the same were removed by the First Amendment, however, defamation continues to be a part of the Constitution. So, it is immaterial to say that Article 19(2) deals only with civil defamation when at the time of commencement of the Constitution, only Section 499 was the only place where defamation acquired a settled judicial meaning.
  • Section 499 and 500 continues to cover the objective of protection of public interests by defining civil wrong so as to protect the same by providing reasonable restrictions u/s 19(2) of the Constitution.
  • Thus viewed, the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) cannot allowed to brush away the right engrafted under Article 21, but there has to be balancing of rights.
Also Read  Ad-interim injunction for infringing patent: B. Braun Melsungen Ag & Ors. Vs. Rishi Baid & Ors.


The judgement was passed by Justice Dipak Misra and was agreed upon by Justice P.C. Pant. Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Section 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgement was given by a two-member bench after analyzing different definitions of ‘Defamation’ and ‘Reputation’. The bench while deciding the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014 was of the opinion that ‘Right to life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also includes ‘Right to Reputation’, which is an inseparable part of a person’s personality. The Court emphasized that the law on criminal defamation is clear and unambiguous and thus distinguished other cases in which it had struck down legislation that infringed freedom of speech, such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Hence, the petitions were dismissed by the Court by upholding the constitutional validity of Criminal Defamation under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Also, the Court during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, directed the stay of further proceedings before the trial court, makes it open for the petitioners to challenge the issue as the provision has been declared Constitutional.


Defamation can be criminal or civil in nature. The offences committed as civil defamation are dealt with penalties limited to damages only whereas the punishment for committing a criminal defamation is imprisonment which may extend to 2 years, or fine, or both and is governed by IPC whereas the former falls under law of torts.

Replacing criminal penalties with the civil penalties cannot fulfil the criteria to balance the right of freedom of expression with the right to reputation. The main idea behind balancing should be exercise of individual’s ‘freedom of speech and expression’ without compromising with the person’s ‘reputation’ in the eyes of public.

Also Read  Rivera v United States

The reasonableness and proportionality of a restriction is examined from the view point of the interest of the general public, and not from the point of view of the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. The judgment rightly upholds the constitutionality of the offense of criminal defamation, stating that it constitutes a ‘reasonable restriction’ on the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

By Kushank Garg