RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

V SEMESTER

CRIMINAL LAW-I PROJECT

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION: THIN LINE BETWEEN CRIMINAL

LIABILITY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Submitted by: Bhavika Bansal (21230)

 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Date: 3rd November, 2023.

This is to certify that the project on the topic “Criminal Defamation: Thin line between
criminal liability and freedom of speech and expression” and submitted to Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Punjab is an original and bonafide piece of research work, that
was carried out under my supervision and was required for the 5 th semester of B.A.LL.B
(Hons.).

Mr. Ankit Kaushik

Assistant Professor in Legal Research

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successful completion of my project on “Criminal Defamation: Thin line between
criminal liability and freedom of speech and expression” in the fifth semester of the five-year
course required a lot of guidance and assistance from many people and I feel exceptionally
lucky and privilege to receive them in the right manner and time. All these factors contributed
in helping me to complete my project on time.

I would like to express my gratitude towards our esteemed Vice-Chancellor, Professor (Dr.)
Anand Pawar for providing me with an opportunity to demonstrate my talent and intellect in
a prestigious university like RGNUL and learning a great deal from this project.

Secondly, I'd like to thank, Mr. Ankit Kaushik our Professor of Criminal Law for providing
the necessary support and guidance to complete the project successfully. I am extremely
grateful to sir for discussing the project with us in class and clearing up any confusion we
had.

Finally, I'd like to thank the staff members of the I.T. department and the library at RGNUL
for providing me with the access to the resources of the library, without which my research
would not have been possible.

Bhavika Bansal
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE..................................................................................................2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5

1.1 Preface........................................................................................................................5

1.2 Research Objectives....................................................................................................6

1.3 Research Questions....................................................................................................6

1.4 Research Methodology...............................................................................................6

LEGAL FRAMEWORK.........................................................................................................8

2.1 Background of the defamation laws...............................................................................8

2.2 Legal provisions in India................................................................................................9

2.2.1 Defamation as a Tort............................................................................................10

2.2.2 Criminal defamation and its exceptions..............................................................10

2.3 Constitutional Questions and decriminalizing defamation.........................................11

THE MJ AKBAR DEFAMATION CASE...........................................................................13

3.1 Facts of the case............................................................................................................13

3.2 Pleadings........................................................................................................................14

3.3 Judgement of the Court.................................................................................................15

3.4 Comments......................................................................................................................15

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................17

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................18
 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preface
It is acknowledged that the freedom of speech and expression serves as democracy's
cornerstone. In the hierarchy of rights, free speech is the primary need for liberty and
represents such a unique ideal that most other civil freedoms rely on it for support and
substance. But developing a practical framework for free speech has proven to be very
difficult. 1The challenge here is striking a balance between the two (sometimes conflicting)
obligations of democracies: community norms for free speech on the one hand, and freedom
of speech and expression on the other. Another such promise is the legal right to reputation
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.2

To this extent, Sections 499–502 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') codify Indian criminal
defamation law. Section 499 outlines the crime of slander and specifies the exceptions.
Section 500 makes defamation punishable by simple imprisonment for up to two years, a
fine, or both. Sections 501 and 502 penalize printing or engraving known to constitute
defamatory content, as well as the sale of such printed or engraved material containing
defamatory matter against any person, in the same way as defamation is punished. 3 In
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India4, a division bench of the Supreme Court led by
Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant, found criminal defamation to be constitutionally
legitimate, basing its decision on a two-part test of constitutional brotherhood and basic
responsibility. Furthermore, under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, obscenity has
been seen as a justifiable limitation on freedom of speech and expression.

The current research seeks to comprehend the state's clashing interests in free expression and
the crime of defamation. To that purpose, the extensive jurisprudence on free expression in
light of the defamation offense will be explored. As a case study, the recent case of
Mobashar Jawed Akbar v. Priya Ramani decided by the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi
will be examined. There will also be a short examination of the validity of criminal
defamation as upheld in the Subramanian Swamy Case5.

1
Government of India, Report of the Second Press Commission, Volume 1, 34-35 (1954).
2
Geoffrey R. Stone, Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution, EAST EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW 78, NO.3, 78 (1994).
3
K.D.GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE 1301 (Universal Law Publication, 2015).
4
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728 (India).
5
ibid.
In the current case, journalist Priya Ramani alleged former editor and Bhartiya Janata Party
Member of Parliament MJ Akbar of sexual harassment. These charges forced him to resign as
Union Minister. He then took Ramani to court in a criminal defamation lawsuit. Ramani was
accused of "wilfully, deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously" defaming him on
"completely false, frivolous, unjustifiable, and scandalous grounds," according to the former
minister of state for foreign affairs. Ramani was charged with defamation under Section 499
of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable under Section 500. 6

The Court acquitted Ramani in the criminal defamation case after a nearly two-year trial. 7 As
a result of the clashing goals of free expression and the crime of defamation, an important
legal challenge emerges. To what degree must interventions into free speech be permitted in
order to safeguard the reputation of persons or groups? This project tries to comment on the
Lower Court's decision in the recent MJ Akbar Defamation Case, analysing it against the
touchstones of the Indian Constitution and the charge of defamation. This project will be
carried out as follows: First, it will address free speech in the context of criminal defamation
law. Second, it will trace the historical discussion and jurisprudence around this juxtaposition.
Third, it will examine contemporary case law and finish with the author's objections of it.

1.2 Research Objectives

 To comprehend the competing interests of free speech and the crime of defamation.
 To examine the jurisprudence on free speech and expression in India in light of the
defamation offense.
 To examine the MJ Akbar defamation case in light of the defamation offense.

1.3 Research Questions

 What is the opposite nature of the right of freedom of speech and expression and the
offence of defamation?
 How may the MJ Akbar Defamation Case be examined in light of the defamation
offense?

1.4 Research Methodology

The offered study will use the 'Doctrinal Method' of research and will consult both primary
and secondary sources. The main sources must contain Constitutional provisions, legislative

6
--, Akbar Vs Ramani: Timeline of defamation case, INDIAN EXPRESS (Feb. 17, 2021), Akbar Vs Ramani:
Timeline of defamation case | India News - The Indian Express.
7
ibid.
documents, and case laws pertinent to the matter at hand. To analyse the original study,
secondary sources will contain references to comments, books, research papers, and articles.
 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Background of the defamation laws
A man's reputation is more important to him than his life. According to Black's Law
Dictionary, “defamation is the crime of causing harm to a person's character, renown, or
reputation via false and malicious words.” The phrase seems to include both libel and slander.
8
Defamation has been a hot topic in recent years, due to the rising media frenzy around the
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). Individuals, whether in
their private or official capacities, are concerned about whatever statements they may make
that will cause a commotion or put them in jail.

In law, defamation is defined as an assault on another's reputation by a false publication

(communication to a third party) that tends to bring the person into disgrace. The notion is
elusive, and its variations are only limited by human ingenuity. Although defamation is a
modern concept, identical ideas existed thousands of years before. Abusive chanting was
capitally punished under Roman law. Insults were punished in early English and German law
by cutting away the tongue. Only imputation of crime or social illness, as well as casting
aspersions on professional skill, were considered slander in England until the Slander of
Women Act of 1891, which made imputation of unchastity criminal. The French defamation
law demanded prominent retraction of defamatory content in newspapers and only permitted
truth as a defence when publications involved public people. Modern German defamation is
similar, although truth is often allowed as a defence. In Italy, truth seldom justifies slander,
which is a criminal offense. 9

In general, defamation requires that the publication be untrue and without the agreement of
the person being defamed. Words and images are interpreted based on customary use and the
context of publishing. Defamation does not occur when simply sentiments are hurt; there
must also be a loss of reputation. The individual who has been defamed does not have to be
identified, but he or she must be identifiable. A group of people is regarded defamed only if
the publication refers to all of its members--especially if the group is small--or if specific
individuals are expressly implicated. 10

8
Shivi, Defamation Laws and Judicial Intervention: A Critical Study, SUMMER ISSUE, ILI LAW REVIEW,
170 (2016).
9
ibid.
10
Sujata Dahiya, Defamation : In Indian context (June, 2019),
https://www.ijim.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Vol-4-Issue-II-14-17-Paper-4-Deffermation-iadian-context-
Sujata-Dahiya.pdf.
Defamation has two legal subcategories: libel (a permanent representation, such as writing,
printing, a portrait, an effigy, or a statue) and slander (a brief representation. It is mostly via
spoken words or gestures). 11The introduction of electronic communications has considerably
confused the categorization. Some nations consider radio defamation to be libel, while others
consider it to be slander. Similar issues arise while watching television. The law also
acknowledges that written defamation is more likely to cause harm than "mere talk."

Damages receivable for libel and slander are also distinct. Libel cases seek retribution for all
defamatory outcomes, known as general damages if they entail reputational harm and special
damages if they involve particular economic loss. 12Only special damages may be recovered
in a slander suit; however, certain countries do not make this difference. Defamation is
legally punished under numerous legislations, but it must directly harm the public interest in
order to be invoked.

The actual truth of the publication is frequently a defence to a defamation allegation. Legal
privilege derived from a specific connection or position also removes culpability (for
example, US Senators cannot be punished for whatever they say on the Senate floor). Under
the theory of "fair comment and criticism," the mass media has considerable discretion in
some areas, although such opinion must belong to a person's job rather than private matters
13
and must be factually correct. The publishing of a remark that reflects on a person's
reputation and tends to downgrade him in the opinion of right-thinking members of society in
general, or tends to make them shun or avoid him, is considered defamation.

The following are the essential features of defamation:

i. The statement must be defamatory.

ii. The statement must mention the plaintiff.
iii. The statement must be publicized, which means that it must be transmitted to at least
one person else than the claimant.

2.2 Legal provisions in India

There is no such difference in Indian law between libel and slander. Libel and slander are
both criminal offenses. The law on defamation is separated into two categories for ease of

11
--, Libel vs. Slander vs. Defamation – What are the Differences?, LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE,
https://www.thebusinesslitigators.com/libel-vs-slander-vs-defamation-what-are-the-differences.html.
12
ibid.
13
David Rolph, The Concept of Publication in Defamation Law, TORTS LAW JOURNAL, VOL 27, NO. 1
(2021).
understanding: criminal and civil. Because the subject of this project is criminal defamation
under the IPC, it will be examined in further depth in the next subsection.

2.2.1 Defamation as a Tort

When it comes to defamation under tort law, the emphasis is often on libel (i.e., written
defamation) rather than slander (i.e., verbal defamation). It must be shown that a statement is
14
libelous if it is (i) untrue, (ii) written, (iii) defamatory, and (iv) published. A fascinating
characteristic of defamation as a tort is that it is only a wrong if the defamation hurts the
reputation of a living person. In most situations, this means that defaming a dead person is
not a tort since, as a general rule, the plaintiff must be able to establish that the defamatory
comments related to him.

However, this does not exclude a cause of action if a deceased person is defamed – for
example, if a defamatory comment harms the reputation of a deceased person's successor, a
defamation case would be maintainable. Furthermore, if a defamation case is filed and
defamation is determined to have occurred, damages will be awarded to the plaintiff (often,
the person defamed). In addition, a person who is concerned about being defamed in a
publication may seek an injunction to prevent such publication, though this is rarely granted
following the principle of Bonnard v. Perryman 15as applied by a division bench of the Delhi
High Court in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi 16and the 2011 decision of the Delhi High
Court in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr17.

Thus, under civil defamation, Indian courts have a predisposition to favor free speech rather
than award injunctions that would have the effect of muzzling speech on the basis of probable
defamation. It is worth noting that the Rajiv Gandhi administration introduced a defamation
bill to address the legislation of defamation. However, owing to its severe provisions, the
Defamation Bill of 1988 drew extensive condemnation from the media and opposing parties.
As a result, it was withdrawn.18

2.2.2 Criminal defamation and its exceptions

The IPC, section 499-502 of Chapter XXI, protects an individual's/person's reputation.
Section 124A of the Code deals with defamation of the state (Sedition), Section 153 of the

14
Achal Gupta, Defamation, a tort, SCC Blog (Feb. 12, 2021),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/12/defamation-2/.
15
Bonnard v. Perryman, (1891) 2 CH 269 (United Kingdom).
16
Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 58 (India).
17
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr, I.A. No.9089/2010 in CS (OS) 1407/2010 (India).
18
id note 14.
Code deals with defamation of a class, i.e., community (Riot), and Section 295A deals with
hate speech aimed at inciting religious feelings (Hate Speech).

Section 499 of the IPC defines 'defamation' as being committed through:

i. “words (spoken or intended to be read), (ii) signs, or (iii) visible representations;

ii. Which: are a published or spoken imputation concerning any person;
iii. If the imputation is spoken or published with: (i) the intention of causing harm to the
reputation of the person to whom it pertains, or (ii) knowledge or reason.”

Four explanations and eleven exclusions apply to this wide concept. If a person is found
guilty of defamation under section 499 of the IPC, the penalty is provided in section 500,
which is simple imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both. The offense is non-
cognizable and bailable, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the
procedural components of the law. Those suspected of the crime would normally not be
brought into jail without a warrant, and as a result, an offended party would not be able to
simply register a police complaint, but would, in most situations, have to file a complaint
before a judge.19

Although 'truth' is commonly seen as a civil offense, under criminal law, only truth
(assuming, of course, that it is clearly true) is a defence against defamation as a crime in a
restricted number of instances.This makes people especially susceptible to being found guilty
of defamation under the IPC, even if their imputations were true.

2.3 Constitutional Questions and decriminalizing defamation

The issue that emerges is whether liability for defamation violates the right to free speech and
expression. Although there is no distinct basic right to privacy, legal interpretation
incorporates it as a component of the right to life and liberty provided by Article 21 of the
Constitution. As a result, the right to reputation is likewise covered by Article 21.20

A petition for the decriminalization of defamation was submitted in the case of Subramanian
Swamy v. Union of India21. Concurring petitions from Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal
have joined Subramanian Swamy's appeal to decriminalize defamation before the Supreme
Court. The petition argued that Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are an

19
--, Defamation law in India: IPC Section 499 and 500, FINOLOGY (March 27, 2023),
https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/defamation-law-in-india.
20
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 8 SCC 1 (India).
21
id note 4.
unjustified limitation on freedom of speech and expression. 22 The Supreme Court ruled that
criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 did not violate Article 19(1)(a) since it is a
legitimate limitation under Article 19(2). In Art. 19(2), the phrase 'defamation' encompasses
both civil and criminal defamation. Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC were found to be non-
discriminatory and non-arbitrary, and so did not violate the right to equality granted by
Article 14 of the Constitution. 23While an individual has the freedom to criticize and dissent
in a democracy, his right under Art. 19(1)(a) is not absolute, and he cannot slander another
person since it would violate the victim's basic right to reputation, which is enshrined in Art.
21 of the Constitution.24

The court was asked if sections 499 and 500 of the IPC went beyond the limits of the
reasonable restraints set by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. While rejecting the
petition, the Supreme Court provided a lengthy explanation of the explanations and
exclusions annexed to section 499.

One of the arguments was that the exclusions make the crime more stringent, making the
notion of criminal defamation exceedingly implausible. Furthermore, truth was not a defense,
and an undue emphasis on 'public welfare' was placed. After a long debate, the Supreme
Court held in Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra 25that neither the primary
provision, the explanation, nor the exclusions suggested any ambiguity and hence could not
be termed unreasonable. It also rejected the contention that the law of proportionality could
not survive criminal defamation.

22
--, Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, GLOBAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/subramanian-swamy-v-union-india/.
23
ibid.
24
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 591 (India).
25
Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra, AIR 1962 SC 159 (India).
 THE MJ AKBAR DEFAMATION CASE
3.1 Facts of the case
When over 70 women banded together to speak against Hollywood producer Harvey
Weinstein and his predatory web across the business, a worldwide #MeToo movement
erupted. The movement's unparalleled power drew worldwide notice. It quickly spread to
India.26 On various platforms of social media, women in industry of entertainment and media
bravely confronted their alleged harassers and those who aided them.

This comprised of fifteen to twenty women, majorly journalists, who accused former editor
and BJP MP M.J. Akbar of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. The women
described Akbar's alleged predatory tendencies and the difficulties they encountered in their
encounters with him in detail.27 Akbar has held positions of influence in many prominent
players of the journalism industry, including The Telegraph, Asian Age, and India Today.
Among the accusers were the petitioner in this case and writer Priya Ramani, who recounted
her meeting with Akbar for a job interview two decades ago. On October 17, 2017, Ramani
published a letter to a "male boss" in Vogue magazine, without disclosing Akbar's name.
"Turns out you were just as good a predator as you were a writer," the essay said. It further
continued that, “It was more of a date than an interview. You offered me a drink from the
mini-bar (I declined; you drank vodka), we sat at a little table for two overlooking the
Queen's Necklace (very lovely!), and you sung me classic Hindi songs after enquiring about
my musical tastes. You felt you were unstoppable."

A year later, Ramani disclosed in a tweet that the predatory conduct she originally wrote
about was a well-known journalist who ultimately became a union minister in the BJP
administration. "I began this piece with my MJ Akbar story," she tweeted on October 8,
2018. She continued, “He was never identified since he didn't "do" anything. Many women
have had worse experiences with this predator; maybe they will share their tales. #ulti" When
Akbar was identified, he was forced to resign from his post as a union minister. 28

He hauled Ramani to court in a criminal defamation lawsuit within days. Ramani was
accused of "wilfully, deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously" defaming him on

26
Holly Corbett, #MeToo Five Years Later: How the Movement Started And What Needs To Change, FORBES
(Oct. 27, 2022), https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2022/10/27/metoo-five-years-later-how-the-
movement-started-and-what-needs-to-change/?sh=33616dcc5afe.
27
--, MJ Akbar: India ex-minister loses #MeToo defamation case to Priya Ramani, BBC (Feb. 17 , 2021),
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56006498.
28
ibid.
"completely false, frivolous, unjustifiable, and scandalous grounds," according to the former
minister of state for foreign affairs. Ramani was charged with defamation under Section 499
of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable under Section 500.

In his defamation complaint, Akbar named six people as witnesses against Ramani, including
the Sunday Guardian's editor, Joyeeta Basu, and astrologer and tarot card reader Veenu
Sandal, who has a column in the Sunday Guardian, which Akbar created in 2010. Other
former coworkers were also included on the list.29

3.2 Pleadings
Ramani described the lawsuit as an effort to "silence" her and many other women who had
finally spoken out. Ramani had said on February 25, 2019, when the Patiala House Court in
Delhi granted her bail against a personal bond and guarantee of Rs 10,000 each, "Truth is my
only defence." On April 10, 2019, Ramani was charged with defamation, to which she pled
not guilty. The debates continued in the Rose Avenue court for the next two years before an
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Rebecca John, a senior attorney, represented
Ramani. In her remarks, the accused's attorney John persuaded the court that a truthful
30
imputation made in the public interest is not defamation. She further claimed Ramani's
alleged libelous tweets and the Vogue piece she wrote were "her truth, and her case is an
affirmative defense."

In one instance, Akbar's lawyer Geeta Luthra requested Ramani to identify the journalists she
"admired," the amount of pieces she had authored, and the top stories she had contributed as a
journalist. These were supposed to be "friendly, informal questions," but every time Ramani
attempted to respond, she was stopped and informed she was answering them "incorrectly."
The presiding magistrate had to come to Ramani's aid simply to remind the court that the
witness is free to "answer in whatever way she likes." "Let me tell you clearly," the
magistrate stated at one point. Further, the magistrate said, “If you do not allow her to
respond, the whole trial will be tainted in the future." Luthra told the court that she had
waited for a chance to criticize Akbar after he became a minister, referring to prior pieces
written by Ramani on the subject of sexual harassment. She said Ramani had sufficient
chance and different forums to talk against Akbar in the past, but she did not. Luthra further

29
id note 6.
30
Suchita Kumar, Priya Ramani vs MJ Akbar: The case which got India talking on #MeToo, TIMES NOW
(Feb. 17, 2021), https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/priya-ramani-vs-mj-akbar-the-case-which-got-
india-talking-on-metoo/721565.
said Ramani's timing demonstrated her intention to "deliberately, maliciously, and in bad
faith malign Mr Akbar." Ramani's charges against Akbar, she said, were a "afterthought." 31

Luthra further said that Akbar has a "stellar reputation" that Ramani has attempted to ruin.
Thousands of individuals had worked with Akbar, yet there had been "not a whisper" for over
50 years, according to Luthra. "Reputation is built day by day, minute by minute, brick by
brick." It takes one second to demolish it and 50 years to construct it." Ramani's lawyer, John,
had explicitly asserted that there was a "culture of silence" concerning workplace sexual
harassment, and the #MeToo movement gave her a safe platform to speak out about her
harassment by Akbar after 20 years. According to John, up to 14 women have made similar
charges against Akbar. "Silence can't refute her truth," John contended. 32

3.3 Judgement of the Court

The court acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in M J Akbar's criminal defamation case over
sexual harassment charges, ruling that a woman has the right to air her concerns on any
platform of her choosing, even decades later. The court said in its judgment that the claims
have a social stigma connected to them. The effect of sexual assault and harassment on
victims must be understood by society.

The court also told the parties that an appeal might be made in the event of a grievance and
asked Ramani to provide a bail bond if an appeal was desired. The court noted that a man of
social standing may be a sexual harasser. "Sexual abuse takes away dignity and self-
confidence," it stated. It added that the "right of reputation can't be protected at the cost of
right to dignity."33

3.4 Comments
The case does not represent a decisive triumph for the #MeToo movement. Because the
decision in this case came from a lower court, it is unlikely to provide a decisive precedent in
future instances of sexual harassment. However, it will very certainly discourage anybody
accused of sexual harassment from pursuing a defamation lawsuit in the future unless that
person is certain of success. In addition, unlike the Vishaka decision, it is unlikely to result in
the development of new workplace sexual harassment policies. The Vishaka decision resulted
in the passage of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition,
and Redressal) Act in 2013. However, the true consequences of this ruling will be obvious in
31
ibid.
32
ibid.
33
id note 27.
years to come. But how it plays out in the future is entirely up to us. We must remember that
society is nicer to males and prefers to believe them.34

Also, we shall be aware that just by declaring #MeToo will not result in women receiving
justice. If you look back, you'll discover that accused men have quietly returned to work
without incurring any legal or societal consequences for the claims levelled against them. All
predatory guys, powerful and otherwise, who were called out are still free to wander,
disgraced and enraged. These individuals think they did nothing illegal; they were just caught
in the act. And those who they preyed on are still held accountable for their conduct. So,
women are still revered. For this momentum to continue, society's perception of predators
and survivors must shift. The decision should not be seen as a win that will drastically alter
the situation for other women in the workplace. Women must continue to fight.

34
Smita Singh, Why is the Priya Ramani vs. MJ Akbar a milestone?, NATIONAL HERALD (Feb. 19, 2021),
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/why-is-the-priya-ramani-vs-mj-akbar-verdict-a-milestone.
 CONCLUSION
The goal of defamation legislation is to safeguard people's reputations. The primary issue is
how to balance this goal with opposing demands for free expression. Because both of these
interests are highly valued in our culture, the former as maybe the most coveted feature of
civilized human beings, and the latter as the basic cornerstone of a democratic society. The
supreme court granted the petitioner an interim time frame of eight weeks in which to file a
challenge. Meanwhile, additional incidents, particularly in the political arena, have emerged,
such as the defamation lawsuit brought against Gogoi or the purported arrest of Kiku Sharda.
The verdict puts the matter to a close, but it leaves several things unanswered. For example,
in a progressive economy such as India, the use of criminal laws is appropriate, particularly
in an age when reformative justice is replacing retributive justice. Aside from the rising
intolerance in the country, this judgment may give rise to another concern.

The clashing goals of free expression and the crime of defamation raise a legal challenge. To
what degree must invasions into free expression be permitted only for the purpose of
offending the reputation of certain persons or groups? As a result, this initiative first
considered a definition of free expression in the context of defamation. Second, it detailed the
historical discussion and jurisprudence around this juxtaposition. Third, it will analyse
current case law and finish with the author's opinions on it.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
JOURNAL & ARTICLES

 Government of India, Report of the Second Press Commission, Volume 1, 34-35

(1954).
 Geoffrey R. Stone, Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution, EAST EUROPEAN
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW 78, NO.3, 78 (1994).
 --, Akbar Vs Ramani: Timeline of defamation case, INDIAN EXPRESS (Feb. 17,
2021), Akbar Vs Ramani: Timeline of defamation case | India News - The Indian
Express.
 Shivi, Defamation Laws and Judicial Intervention: A Critical Study, SUMMER
ISSUE, ILI LAW REVIEW, 170 (2016).
 Sujata Dahiya, Defamation : In Indian context (June, 2019), https://www.ijim.in/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Vol-4-Issue-II-14-17-Paper-4-Deffermation-iadian-context-
Sujata-Dahiya.pdf.
 --, Libel vs. Slander vs. Defamation – What are the Differences?, LUBIN
AUSTERMUEHLE, https://www.thebusinesslitigators.com/libel-vs-slander-vs-
defamation-what-are-the-differences.html.
 David Rolph, The Concept of Publication in Defamation Law, TORTS LAW
JOURNAL, VOL 27, NO. 1 (2021).
 Achal Gupta, Defamation, a tort, SCC Blog (Feb. 12, 2021),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/12/defamation-2/.
 --, Defamation law in India: IPC Section 499 and 500, FINOLOGY (March 27,
2023), https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/defamation-law-in-india.
 --, Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, GLOBAL FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/subramanian-
swamy-v-union-india/.
 Holly Corbett, #MeToo Five Years Later: How the Movement Started And What
Needs To Change, FORBES (Oct. 27, 2022),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2022/10/27/metoo-five-years-later-how-
the-movement-started-and-what-needs-to-change/?sh=33616dcc5afe.
 --, MJ Akbar: India ex-minister loses #MeToo defamation case to Priya Ramani,
BBC (Feb. 17 , 2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56006498.
  Suchita Kumar, Priya Ramani vs MJ Akbar: The case which got India talking on
#MeToo, TIMES NOW (Feb. 17, 2021),
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/priya-ramani-vs-mj-akbar-the-case-
which-got-india-talking-on-metoo/721565.
 Smita Singh, Why is the Priya Ramani vs. MJ Akbar a milestone?, NATIONAL
HERALD (Feb. 19, 2021), https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/why-is-the-
priya-ramani-vs-mj-akbar-verdict-a-milestone.

CASES

 Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728 (India).

 Bonnard v. Perryman, (1891) 2 CH 269 (United Kingdom).
 Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 58 (India).
 Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr, I.A. No.9089/2010 in CS (OS)
1407/2010 (India).
 Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra, AIR 1962 SC 159 (India).
 Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 8 SCC 1 (India).
 Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 591 (India).