LI Research
Published on: 06 April 2023 at 15:31 IST
The Protection of Speech and Reputation Bill, 2016, is a legislative proposal in India that seeks to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect individuals’ reputation. The bill aims to replace the outdated and problematic defamation laws in the country, which are considered to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of democracy.
The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament) by the Minister of Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad, on May 11, 2016. The bill defines defamation as any false imputation made with the intention to harm a person’s reputation, either by spoken or written words, gestures, or any other visible representation.
The proposed legislation seeks to bring significant changes to the current defamation laws in India. One of the most significant changes is that the burden of proof will now be on the plaintiff, which means that the person who claims to have been defamed will have to prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with the intention to harm their reputation. This shift in the burden of proof is intended to protect free speech and prevent frivolous lawsuits that can stifle legitimate criticism and dissent.
The bill also seeks to make defamation a compoundable offense, which means that the parties involved can settle the matter outside of court. This provision is intended to reduce the burden on the judiciary, which is currently overburdened with defamation cases. However, this provision has been criticized by some as it could potentially give those with more resources an unfair advantage in settling the case.
Another significant provision of the bill is the introduction of the concept of “Public interest defense.” This defense allows journalists, researchers, and activists to make statements that may be considered defamatory if they can prove that the statement was made in the public interest and was not motivated by malice. This provision is intended to protect the freedom of the press and encourage investigative journalism.
The bill also seeks to address the issue of criminal defamation, which is currently punishable with imprisonment of up to two years. The proposed legislation seeks to decriminalize defamation and replace it with a civil remedy, such as damages. This provision is intended to protect free speech and prevent the misuse of criminal law to silence dissent.
Overall, the Protection of Speech and Reputation Bill, 2016, seeks to strike a balance between the right to free speech and the need to protect individuals’ reputation. While the proposed legislation has been widely welcomed, some concerns have been raised about the potential misuse of the compoundable offense provision and the need for clear guidelines for the public interest defense.
However, if implemented effectively, the bill could significantly improve India’s defamation laws and protect the freedom of speech and the press.
Its Major Sections are
INSTITUTION AND PARTIES TO A SUIT FOR DEFAMATION
- After a person has complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, he
may institute a suit for defamation in the following manner—
(a) No suit for defamation shall be instituted by any person other than the
person who has suffered serious harm by a false statement:
Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is
of unsound mind, or is suffering from sickness or infirmity and is unable to make
a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, is
restrained from appearing in public, some other person may institute the suit on
their behalf:
Provided further that when a person institutes a suit on behalf of another
person, such person shall do so by taking leave of the court which shall consider
it and pass an order prior to issuing summons to a defendant; and
(b) An aggrieved party may institute a suit for defamation being a member of a
readily identifiable association or group of person if—
(i) the statement is made against an identifiable association or group of
persons;
(ii) the statement has caused serious harm to the identifiable association
or group of persons;
(iii) the aggrieved party is a natural person; and
(iv) the aggrieved party is a member of such identifiable association or
group of persons:
Provided that when a natural person institutes a suit as a member of a readily
identifiable association or group of persons, it shall be by taking leave of the court
which shall consider it and pass an order prior to issuing summons to a defendant. - (1) A Government agency or any local authority or institution performing government
or statutory functions shall not be entitled to institute suits for defamation under this Act.
(2) No suit for defamation shall be instituted or held maintainable when the statement
is made against a public servant with respect to his acts and conduct relating to the discharge
of his official or public duties:
Provided that a suit for damages by a public official seeking damages for
defamatory statement be deemed to be maintainable if it is proved that the statement
was made with reckless disregard for truth:
Provided further that when a public servant institutes a suit for defamation, it
shall be by taking leave of the court which shall consider it and pass an order prior to
issuing summons to a defendant. - (1) Any suit for defamation shall proceed only against the author, editor or publisher
of the statement and shall contain particulars identifying each defendant under the category
of an author, editor or a publisher.
(2) In the case of statement made in any book, newspaper or paper, the plaintiff shall
identify the author, editor or publisher as per the declarations contained under the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867:
Provided that where the statement is not governed by the provisions of the
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the plaintiff shall make reasonable efforts to
ascertain the author, editor or publisher and the explanation of such effort should be
contained in the particulars of the plaint.
(3) An intermediary shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of any
statement and shall not to be made party to any suit for defamation.
- (1) The relief which a court may grant in any suit for defamation includes injunction
(subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) at the option of the plaintiff and damages.
(2) The order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include any of the following
reliefs, namely:
(a) a suitable correction of the statement found to be defamatory and sufficient
apology to the aggrieved party;
(b) to publish the correction and apology in a manner that is reasonable and
practicable to the aggrieved party;
(c) to pay the aggrieved party such compensation by way of damages (if any).
(3) The costs of all parties shall be as per the discretion of the court and the Court shall
take into account the travel and business costs incurred by the parties while assigning
costs.
The Bill