A Supreme Court judge has voiced concern over the rising use of criminal defamation laws by private individuals and political parties, urging that it may be time “to decriminalise” slander. Justice M.M. Sundresh made the remark on Monday (September 22, 2025), highlighting the law’s misuse for personal or political vendettas.
Background: What is criminal defamation?
Criminal defamation in India has long been upheld as constitutionally valid. In 2016, the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India ruled that criminal defamation was a “reasonable restriction” on the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), as it protects a person’s reputation, considered part of the fundamental right to life.
Justice Sundresh’s observation comes amid a growing debate about whether private individuals should be able to treat defamation as a crime, given that it may not serve any public interest.
Case prompting the remark
The judge made the comment while hearing a petition by the Foundation for Independent Journalism—which runs The Wire—and a journalist seeking to quash summons in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, noted that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly approached the Supreme Court to stay summons issued in criminal defamation cases filed by private individuals. The Bench tagged the Foundation’s petition with Gandhi’s batch of cases.
Supreme Court’s stance on misuse
In recent months, various Benches of the apex court have stayed criminal defamation proceedings, warning that courts are not platforms to settle political scores. Justice Sundresh’s remarks follow similar observations made in cases involving Gandhi and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, among others.
In a March 2025 ruling in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, the Supreme Court held that claims of criminal defamation must be judged by “reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men” rather than those who overreact or see danger in every critical remark. The judgment referenced the “man on top of a Clapham omnibus” as the benchmark for reasonableness.
Broader implications
The judge’s comments underscore growing concern in India’s judiciary about the misuse of criminal defamation to stifle free speech. Observers say this could fuel discussions on reforming the law, balancing protection of reputation with the public’s right to express opinions, especially in political and journalistic contexts.