Published on: 23 September, 2025 12:01 IST
The Supreme Court on Monday observed that it may be time to reconsider India’s criminal defamation law while hearing a plea linked to an article about Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S C Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs a news portal, and its journalist Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha. The petitioners sought quashing of summons issued against them in a criminal defamation case over a 2016 article titled “Dossier Call JNU ‘Den of Organised Sex Racket’; Students, Professors Allege Hate Campaign”.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh remarked orally: “It’s time to decriminalise all this.”
Background of the case
The complaint was filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh, who alleged that the article suggested she was behind a controversial dossier, thereby damaging her reputation. Acting on her complaint, a Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the editor and journalist in January 2017.
In 2023, the Delhi High Court quashed the summons. However, in July 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Sundresh overturned that decision, ruling that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, and remitted the matter back to the trial court. The trial court once again issued summons, which the petitioners are now challenging before the top court.
Wider implications
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that similar appeals have been filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in connection with criminal defamation cases, raising overlapping legal questions. The bench has issued notice on the Foundation’s plea.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), where a two-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 499 IPC defines defamation, while Section 500 prescribes punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. In its 2016 judgment, the Court held that reputation is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21, and criminal defamation serves the social interest by balancing freedom of speech with protection of individual reputation.
The road ahead
Although the 2016 verdict upheld criminal defamation as a “reasonable restriction” on free speech, Monday’s oral remark signals a possible shift in judicial thinking. The outcome of the present case especially when viewed alongside other pending appeals — could influence the future of India’s defamation law.