- People closely following the fortunes of political parties and the politicians in the country would know how certain anachronistic laws tend to affect them in more than one way. Of course, every successive union government has initiated measures to repeal some of the most outdated laws from the colonial era. The present dispensation at the Centre too has repealed hundreds of laws that bear no resemblance to the modern-day world. However, despite the stakeholders making earnest efforts at curbing the usage of some of the irrelevant laws, the law enforcement agencies embracing the same continues unabated. Amongst several others, we have one such law in the form of a defamation act that should not have any place now.
PC: Sushil Kumar Jain
- We all know how the scion of the Grand Old Party found himself mired in the criminal defamation case for his remark made four years earlier. As you are aware, when a Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi of criminal defamation for a remark, it also gave him a maximum sentence of two years. Prima facie, this sentence appeared too much for a remark which was definitely made in distaste but didn’t merit such a harsh outcome otherwise. The maximum sentence of two years set off his disqualification from Lok Sabha. In staying this conviction recently, the Supreme Court made piercing observations that in showing how much the criminal defamation provision had been abused in this case, further showed that the law needs to be binned altogether.
- Let’s dig deep to comprehend the consequences of such a harsh sentence here. Despite knowing that it would affect not just the right of one individual but the rights of an entire constituency, the learned trial judge imposed the maximum punishment without giving any reason for doing so. This is what the SC pointed out in its ruling. Had the sentence been a day lesser, there would have been no Representation of the People Act fallout. But this is the cruel form, the defamation law’s colonial sting is worsened by sluggish and/or arbitrary judicial processes. Mind you, its ambiguous wording means it can be weaponized to punish the widest variety of speech acts, from political dissent to humor and satire. The SC must not pass the next opportunity to strike down this law.
PC: T. Narayan/Bloomberg
- Indeed, defamation as a civil action is of course valuable, it represents a reasonable check. As the court said, Rahul needs to be more careful in the future. With election temperatures rising higher and higher, so do the other political leaders. Meanwhile, this is a moment of cheer for Congress. After the successful Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul has positioned himself as a leading campaigner. As such, Rahul’s acquittal adds to the party’s future campaign and Parliament energy. It’s another matter altogether how INDIA non-Congress stalwarts will see Rahul back as a 2024 contestant because Congress wants him as the opposition’s main leader. Nonetheless, the SC must repeal the criminal defamation law forthwith. There’s no way the law must be allowed to exist.
