New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has observed that the time has come to reconsider the criminalization of defamation, opening the door for a possible landmark shift in the country’s legal framework. A two-judge bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundar and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by The Wire in a case brought against it by retired Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Amit Singh.
The matter stems from a 2016 article published by The Wire that portrayed JNU as a hub of “secessionist ideology and terrorism.” Taking objection, Professor Amit Singh initiated criminal defamation proceedings under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2017, summons was issued to the news portal, which challenged the order. Although the Delhi High Court dismissed The Wire’s plea, the issue eventually escalated to the Supreme Court, where the present hearings are underway.
During deliberations, the bench underscored that criminal defamation may no longer be aligned with the principles of a modern democracy. The justices expressed concern that penal provisions for defamation could stifle free expression and discourage healthy public debate. They suggested that civil remedies, such as claims for damages, might be a more proportionate mechanism to address grievances while still upholding the right to reputation.
India remains among the few democracies where defamation is treated as both a civil and criminal offence. If the Supreme Court’s remarks evolve into a judicial precedent, the shift could significantly alter the landscape for journalists, writers, and political commentators who often face criminal complaints for their reporting or criticism. Reforming defamation laws could reduce the misuse of criminal proceedings as tools to intimidate critics or suppress dissent.
At the same time, the Court must balance this reform with protecting individual reputation a constitutional value that has often been cited in defence of retaining the criminal provisions.
The debate over criminal defamation has long been politically charged. Leaders such as Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal have previously highlighted the chilling effect of such laws, particularly when wielded by powerful individuals or institutions. The Court itself, in the 2016 Subramanian Swamy case, upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, though that ruling attracted criticism from free speech advocates.
The present case, therefore, represents a potential turning point. By indicating that criminal defamation may have outlived its purpose, the bench has reignited the conversation around striking a fair balance between free expression and protection of reputation.
While no final verdict has yet been delivered, the observations of Justices Sundar and Sharma could pave the way for constitutional or legislative reform. If accepted, defamation disputes may in future be confined to civil courts, with aggrieved parties seeking monetary compensation rather than criminal penalties.
The outcome of Amit Singh versus The Wire may thus become a precedent-setting case, reshaping how India addresses the tension between free speech and individual dignity.