Directions: Kindly read the given information carefully and answer the question that follows.
Almost three years after the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking to decriminalise defamation, there are fresh attempts to sanitise the law often used against political adversaries, journalists and activists to silence legitimate criticism.In its manifesto released on April 2, the Congress promised to decriminalise defamation to render it a mere civil wrong.
Rejecting the constitutional challenge launched by Congress president Rahul Gandhi, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (criminal defamation), the top court had in May 2016 said: “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.”
A Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, had said: “One cannot be unmindful that right to freedom of speech and expression is a highly valued and cherished right but the Constitution conceives of reasonable restriction. In that context, criminal defamation, which is in existence in the form of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, is not a restriction on free speech that can be characterised as disproportionate.”
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees right to freedom of speech and expression. But defamation is one of the eight grounds listed as reasonable restrictions on right to free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
In simple language, defamation means harming someone’s reputation by making a false and derogatory statement against that person without any lawful justification. It can be by publication of spoken or written words or by visual representation and a single statement can result in both civil and criminal defamation. But to constitute criminal defamation, intention to harm reputation is a must. What is important is that even truth is not a complete defence in criminal defamation as it’s qualified by public good.
Section 500 of IPC prescribes a maximum two-year jail term and fine for criminal defamation.
Extracted with edits from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/nation/towards-decriminalising-defamation-754955 by The Tribune, April 2019
1. In the context of the given passage, the phrase “sanitize the law” means-
(a) Repealing the law
(b) Amending the law
(c) Amending the law to rectify its shortcomings
(d) None of the above
2. A “constitutional challenge” to the law to defamation means-
(a) Challenging the law to be in violation of provisions of the Constitution
(b) Challenging the law by approaching the court under provisions contained in the Constitution
(c) Both (a) and (b)
(d) Either (a) or (b)
3. The given passage suggests that fundamental rights provided under the Indian Constitution are not absolute. This inference is-
(a) Correct
(b) Incorrect
(c) Partly correct
(d) Can’t say
4. Utterance of such words by a person which tend to lower the reputation of another in the eyes of the public amounts to defamation. Mr. X complains about his son Mr. Y to Mrs. Z, the wife of Mr. X, that “Mr. Y does not take his job seriously”. Mr. Y files a case of defamation against Mr. X. Whether Mr. Y will succeed?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Can’t say
(d) None of the above
5. In the context of the given passage, ‘IPC’ stands for-
(a) India’s Penal Code
(b) Indian Penal Code
(c) Indo Penal Code
(d) Intra Penal Code
Correct answers:
Question 1 - Option (c) is the correct answer.
Explanation – Use of the word “sanitize” in the context of the given passage means amending the law of defamation to rectify its shortcomings hence option (c) is correct.
Question 2 - Option (c) is the correct answer.
Explanation – The validity of a law is challenged by alleging it to be in violation of provisions of the Constitution while approaching the High Court or Supreme Court under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution respectively therefore option (c) is correct.
Question 3 - Option (a) is the correct answer.
Explanation – The passage states that right to freedom of speech, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, is subject to reasonable restrictions hence option (a) is correct.
Question 4 – Option (b) is the correct answer.
Explanation – In this case, the alleged statement was made only to Mrs. Z, the wife of Mr. X, who does not constitute the public at large but only one person hence option (b) is correct.
Question 5 – Option (b) is the correct answer.
Explanation – The full form of IPC is Indian Penal Code.
