Court case(2016) 7 SCC 221

Several politicians, including Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, against whom criminal complaints of defamation were pending, filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of ss. 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that criminalising defamation had a chilling effect on free speech, that a civil remedy was sufficient, that "defamation" in Article 19(2) meant only civil defamation, and that the exceptions to s. 499 were vague and placed an unfair burden on the accused.

The Supreme Court upheld the provisions. Reputation is an inherent and inseparable part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21, and the right to free speech must be balanced against it. The word "defamation" in Article 19(2) is not confined to civil defamation, and the framers knew of the criminal offence when they used it. The restriction is reasonable and proportionate: s. 499 is not vague, its exceptions (truth for the public good, good-faith comment on public conduct, fair reports and the rest) protect legitimate speech, and the requirement of a complaint by the person aggrieved in s. 199 CrPC limits misuse. Magistrates were reminded to scrutinise complaints carefully before issuing summons. Interim stays of the pending prosecutions were vacated.