Q: Differentiate Defamation Vs. Freedom of Speech ?

Ans: The question that arises in punishment of defamation is whether liability arising out of defamation is a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of Indian constitution. As we know that there is no specific fundamental right to privacy, the judicial interpretation includes it as a dimension of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. So the right to reputation also comes in the ambit of Article 21.
In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, a petition regarding the decriminalization of defamation was filed. The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. The apex court held that criminal defamation under Section 499 and 500 did not violate Art. 19(1)(a) as it is a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2). 
Reasonable restrictions' as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits for restrictions in the interests of the security and sovereignty of India, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality in the relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 


The term ‘defamation’ in Art. 19(2) includes both civil and criminal defamation. Section 499 and 500 IPC was held to be non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary because it is not subject to individual determination and the provisions are mentioned in law and it is not violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution. While in a democracy an individual has a right to criticize and dissent if there is disagreement between the ideas , but his right under Art. 19(1)(a) is not absolute and he cannot defame another person as that would offend the victim’s fundamental right to reputation which is an integral part of Art. 21 of the Constitution.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the petitioners challenged the validity of Section 66(a) of the Information Technology Act (ITA) contending on section 66(a) that it was not a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They argued that section 66(a) of ot act is an impugned section because it disputes the truth and was unconstitutional because it provided protection against annoyance or irritation, inconvenience, insult, injury, or criminal intimidation to threat someone to do under coercion which is not covered in Art. 19(2). The court found section 66(a) of IT Act to be vague and invalidated it on the ground of being violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more