SUPREME COURT : DEFAMATION U/S. 499 & 500 IPC CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

Noting that it is “extremely difficult to accept that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression”, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code to protect the individual's right to reputation.

“Right to free speech is not absolute. Reputation cannot be crucified at the altar of freedom of speech and expression,” a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant observed in their judgment.

The apex court held that courts have to strike a balance between the fundamental right free speech as well as the right to reputation which is equivalent to the fundamental right to dignity and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Free speech is sacrosanct. But right to life under Article 21 has its own significance as protection of individual rights form the fulcrum of a society. Courts have to strike a balance,” the Supreme Court reasoned.

Print Page

When court can grant mandatory injunction to protect reputation of plaintiff?

This illustration refers to the offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code and the power of the Court to grant mandatory injunction when a prima facie case is made that the reputation of a person or persons is involved in the suit. In those circumstances, it is open to the Court to put an end to the threat of defamation by a mandatory injunction. When we are dealing with a case of defamation we are dealing with personal rights, viz., right to live in dignity and the right to live without one's reputation being besmirched by others. Loss of reputation and consequent loss of character and dignity in one's life cannot be compensated in terms of money. Plaintiffs have advisedly claimed one rupee as damaes In he circumstances Defendants 4 to 8 should be restrained for a temporary period from exhibiting the film in question.

Karnataka High Court

Sonakka Gopalagowda Shanthaveri ... vs U.R. Anantha Murthy And Ors. on 2 December, 1987

Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Kant 255

Bench: P Bopanna

Print Page