Critics aver that the criminal defamation suit and the power given to the apex court and high courts to penalise contemners are blunt instruments to silence criticism. They go on to aver that in many advanced countries only civil defamation suits are permissible so that for loss of reputation suitable monetary compensation may be provided. Dead wrong. In India, the defamers are often both incorrigible and prone to plead pennilessness. Arvind Kejriwal in his salad days would charge anybody who crossed his path with corruption. That included Sonia Gandhi, Shiela Dixit, the former chief minister of Delhi, Mukesh Ambani, and who have you. Arun Jaitley and Nitin Gadkari showed him his place by filing criminal defamation suits. He cowered down and apologised, which showed he had no proof but only visceral hatred for his opponents. Rahul Gandhi, too, backed down, unable to substantiate his charges (https://swarajyamag.com/politics/claim-vs-reality-rahul-gandhis-history-of-saying-sorry). He apologised to the Supreme Court for misquoting it—chowkidar chor hai—during the heady days of Rafale fighter aircraft imports.

Criminal defamation suits are much needed to halt the reckless in their tracks. The fear of cooling their heels behind bars for years together either makes them slow with or recant their charges, especially if they are skating on thin ice or on shaky wickets. Civil defamation doesn’t unduly deter them, as they can wriggle out of monetary compensation by pleading insolvency. In any case, the........

© Free Press Journal