SC says the time has come to decriminalise defamation law

Parmod Kumar | SNS  |  New Delhi | September 22, 2025 : Justice M M Sundresh, heading a bench with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, made the remark while hearing a plea filed by the news portal The Wire against the summons issued by a magistrate on a complaint by Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh over a 2016 article published by the news portal.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the time has come to consider doing away with the criminality attached to defamation, signalling a rethink on its 2016 ruling that had upheld the law’s constitutional validity.

Justice M M Sundresh, heading a bench with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, made the remark while hearing a plea filed by the news portal The Wire against the summons issued by a magistrate on a complaint by Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh over a 2016 article published by the news portal.

“I think the time has come to decriminalise all this…,” Justice Sundresh remarked, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreeing to it. Senior advocate Sibal was appearing in the case representing the Foundation for Independent Journalism that runs The Wire.

The dispute stems from a report that said Prof Singh led a group of JNU teachers who had prepared a 200-page dossier allegedly portraying the university as a hub of a “sex racket” and “secessionism.” The dossier, the article claimed, was submitted to the administration, accusing some teachers of fostering a culture that legitimised separatist politics.

Based on this, Prof Singh lodged a criminal defamation case against the portal and its reporter. A magistrate first issued summons in 2017. The Supreme Court set aside that summons in 2024 and asked the magistrate to reconsider the issuance of the summons after examining the article. Fresh summons were again issued this January to the portal and its political affairs editor, Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta. The Delhi High Court upheld them in May, leading to the current appeal before the apex court.

During the hearing, the court questioned the long pendency of the case. “How long will you go on dragging this?” the Bench asked. To this, Sibal said, “A similar matter is being considered. Rahul Gandhi’s case.” Following this, the court issued notice in the matter.

The court’s latest remark gains significance as, in May 2016, a bench led by Justice Dipak Misra had upheld the validity of the offence of criminal defamation under the old Penal Code. Then, the court had stressed that reputation was part of the right to life under Article 21 and rejected arguments that criminal defamation had a chilling effect on free speech.

The top court, by its May 13, 2016, judgment, had said, “Once we have held that the reputation of an individual is a basic element of Article 21 of the Constitution and the balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity, and further, the legislature in its wisdom has kept the penal provision alive, it is extremely difficult to subscribe to the view that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.”

That verdict had come on challenges mounted by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.