Criminal defamation and sedition laws are relics of the colonial era and have no place in free India. The reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution are spelt out clearly in Article 19 (2). Criminal defamation and sedition are not among them. Un-noticed by the founding fathers of the Constitution, sedition and criminal defamation crept into our criminal justice system through the antiquated Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860 in the midst of cataclysmic political and social upheavals.

Section 124A of the IPC makes sedition a criminal offence and provides for sentence of life imprisonment and fine on conviction. Similarly, Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, provide for criminal defamation, punishable with imprisonment, or fine or both. They were politically motivated and had little to do with protecting reputations.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it was not healthy in a democracy for a State to slap criminal defamation cases against critics and asked the Tamil Nadu government to face criticism of its policies and not choke legitimate dissent by using state machinery and the office of the public prosecutor.

A Division Bench of the court led by Justice Dipak Misra, going through the history of defamation cases in the last five years, noted that cases were filed even for reports about the Chief Minister&’s health. “This is not the sign of a healthy democracy. This shows the State&’s control over the sanctioning authority and the public prosecutor&’s office,” observed Justice Misra. On the issue of sedition, the Supreme Court, while upholding its constitutional validity, had ruled, “Vigorous words in writing and very strong criticism of measures of government or acts of public officials would be outside the scope of Section 124A.,” and that “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the government or its measures by way of criticism or comment so long as he does not incite people to violence against government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.” Defending the criminal defamation provision in IPC 499 and 500, the Supreme Court ruled, “In a democracy, nobody is silent. We allowed criminal defamation to remain on statute as people should not abuse anybody,” and said it was never the intention of the court to stifle free speech. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court&’s rulings and assurances, the governments at the Centre as well as in the States, continue to misuse these colonial era provisions to silence critics and stifle freedom of expression.

During her three terms in office, the Jayalalitha government has filed more than 1,000 criminal defamation cases against critics, including this newspaper, and more than 1,000 sedition cases against people opposed to the Koodankulam nuclear power project. Not even a single case resulted in conviction which shows they were frivolous. By declaring these two superfluous laws unconstitutional, the judiciary, apart from saving the people from avoidable harassment, could reduce its own workload considerably.