LexSUBRAMANIAN SWAMY versus UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 865 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 184 of2014) MAY 13,2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C.-PANT, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.499, 500 - Constitutional validity of - Held: ls constitutionally valid - The Preamble balances different and divergent rights - Keeping in view the constitutional value, the legislature has not repealed s.499 and kept the same alive as a criminal offence - It is not correct to hold that the existence of criminal defamation is absolutely obnoxious to freedom of speech and expression - It neither invites the frown of any of the Articles of the Constitution nor its very existence can be regarded as an unreasonable restriction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.199(1) to 199(4). ss.499, 500 - Criminal defamation which is in existence in the form of ss.499 and 500 is not a restriction on free speech that can be characterized as disproportionate - Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the ·other - Protection of reputation is a fundamental right - It is also a human right - Cumulatively it serves the social interest - Thus, it cannot be said that provisions relating to criminal defamation are not saved by doctrine of proportionality because it determines a limit which is not impermissible within the criterion of reasonable restriction. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14 - Reasonable restriction - To treat a restriction constitutionally permissible, it is necessary to scrutinize whether the restriction or imposition of limitation is excessive or not - When a law limits a constitutional right which many laws do, such limitation is constitutional if it is proportional - The law imposing restriction is proportional if it is meant to achieve a proper purpose, and if the measures taken to achieve such a purpose are rationally connected to the purpose, and such measures are necessary - Such limitations 865 A B c D E F G H 866 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public - Reasonableness is judged with reference to the Qbjective which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not be in excess of that objective - Further, the reasonableness is examined in an objective manner from ihe stand point of the interest of the general public and not from the point of view of the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed or abstract considerations. Art.19(2) - Interpretation of term 'defamation' - Held: The term 'defamation' as used in Art.19(2) not to be construed narrowly - The word "defamation" as used in Article 19(2) has to be conferred an independent meaning, for it is incomprehensible to reason that it should be read with the other words and expressions, namely, "security of the State", 'friendly relations with foreign States", "public order, decency or morality". ' Art.21 - Right to reputation, an essential component of Art.21 - Held: It is an individuals fundamental right and, therefore, balancilig of fundamental right is imperative - In the name of freedom of speech and expression, the right of another cannot be jeopardized Reputation being aninherent component of Art. 21, it should not be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom - Reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of others right of free speech. Art.51-A (e) - Concept of fraternftY - Held: The c011cept of fraternity under the Constitution expects every citizen to respect the dignity of the other - Mutual respect is the jitlcrum of fraternity that assures dignity - It would not mean that there cannot be dissent or difference or discordance or a different voice - One has a right to freedom of speech and expression - One is also obliged under the Constitution to promote the idea of fraternity - It is a constitutional obligation - In the context of constitutional fraternity, fundamental duties engrafted under Art. 51-A gain significance - The prismatic perception of sub-article (e) of Art. 51-A would reflect that it is. the duty of every citizen of India to promote· harmony and the concept of colllmon brotherhood alllongst all the people despite lllany diversities -It is also.the duty of every citizen !&strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. .. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.