& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

Defamation
ALTHOUGH there was the justification of criminalisation of the commission of defamation, i.e. maintaining an apt poise between the protection of an individual's reputation and freedom of expression and thereby to protect people against false and libellous statements causing damage to their honour, fame and reputation, these provisions are increasingly enabling the harassment of journalists and media organisations, who face the disproportionate sanction of up to two years imprisonment and/or a fine if found guilty. Even though the defences of 'truth' and 'public interest' are available, and such cases rarely reach court or result in conviction, the mere existence of criminal defamation provisions and pending cases chills media freedom because the process of litigation itself carries a penalty.
Multiple legal suits for a single (alleged) defamatory incident are common, including against media actors and outlets. International standards are clear in stating that imprisonment is an inherently disproportionate sanction for defamation, with various international human rights mechanisms recommending the repeal of criminal defamation laws entirely. In the year 2011, Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights called on states to expel criminal defamation on the grounds that it harasses and intimidates citizens and unreasonably restricts people's right to freedom of speech.
According to sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, defamation is making or publishing any imputation by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations concerning any person intending to harm the reputation of such person is said to defame that person and whoever does this commits the offence of defamation which is punishable by 2 years simple imprisonment or with fine or
with both. The nature of the offence is 'non-cognizable' and 'bailable'; and an offence under section 499 and 500 is to be tried by Magistrate of First Class.
Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation, except upon a complaint made by some 'person aggrieved' by such offence. Some critics argue that it clearly states the term 'person aggrieved' and avoided the term 'person defamed'. Now the question is who is a 'person aggrieved ? Section 198 of the CrPC clearly states the term 'person aggrieved' and avoided the term 'person defamed'. It has been argued that legislators put the word 'aggrieved' so that the third party in some appropriate cases can file a defamation suit on behalf of other. However, it must be noted that even though, the third parties are allowed to file a cast the prior leave of the court shall have to be taken. Generally before taking cognizance of the complaint the court needs to see how the complainant is aggrieved and in what manner his fame; reputation or honour has been damaged. Furthermore, if he is filing the case on behalf of a deceased person, it is to be proved that how he is connected to 'that person's' family or near relatives in that particular complaint If the complainant fails to satisfy the court then one option is left before the court - to dismiss the complaint on the merit of insufficient ground under section 203 of the CrPC.
The magistrates have pivotal role to play to stop any abuse of this law. Therefore, before allowing complainants' claim to file defamation cases, magistrates should consider whether there was, in fact, any damage to the complainants' reputation. Only feeling of being defamed cannot be ground for taking cognisance of a defamation case.
-FROM LAW DESK