By choosing to file a criminal defamation case only against Priya Ramani, M.J. Akbar makes no effort to hide his intentions.
There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.
Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.
Akbar’s battery of lawyers only had to show to judge Samar Vishal that Ramani’s tweet had “a wide reach based on the number of retweets” to get him to accept the case. It’s that easy to get the ball rolling against those who dare to speak up.
Also read: MJ Akbar sues Priya Ramani for criminal defamation over sexual harassment allegations
Weapon to kill #MeToo
Criminal defamation is the weapon of choice for Ambani, Adani to silence their critics and now for Abkar and Alok Nath too against #MeToo.
This could dangerously end up killing #MeToo that has made women open up despite all odds. For decades, women had few avenues to voice this anguish, but social media has changed the rules of the game. It takes a tweet and a hashtag to bring down powerful men, and this has sent strong signals to predators.
Ramani and over a dozen women have accused Akbar of a crime that could land him in jail for three years. This wasn’t simply a name-calling or character assassination attempt. But the law is allowing him to threaten Ramani by filing a case that could land her in jail for two years even before allegations against him are looked into.
Civil remedy exists for restoring loss of reputation, and hefty fine against those making false allegations is a deterrent. However, criminal remedy would mean jail term, which is physically restricting the liberty of those making the allegations.
Also read: Talk Point: Is it democratic to have harsh criminal law over civil remedies against defamation?
Criminal defamation is problematic also because it presumes a malicious intention behind statements that are likely to damage reputation. The cases rarely result in convictions but the process is a punishment.
By choosing to file the case only against Ramani, even when many others have made similar allegations, Akbar makes no effort to hide his intentions. This is to harass, intimidate and to simply silence voices.
Priya Ramani is the mascot, who symbolises the challenge to his male impunity.
Ramani, who is not based in Delhi, will be worn out by just attending the proceedings in a court, which is a 5-minute drive from Parliament for MP Akbar. What’s worse is that Akbar will not even have to attend the proceedings and his team of lawyers will handle it for him. Exemptions from personal appearances for those charged are possible, but depend on the judge’s discretion. Although invariably, judges exempt women from having to personally appear in every hearing.
Missed chance
In 2016, the Supreme Court passed the chance to repeal Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code that makes criminal defamation an offence punishable with a two-year jail term.
A two-judge bench of the court headed by Justice Dipak Misra upheld the law that makes defamation a criminal offence, confirming that it is not in conflict with the right to free speech. In a flawed verdict, Misra, who has a questionable track record in understanding free speech, equated the right to reputation to a fundamental right.
Also read: The problem is not Kejriwal’s apologies, it is India’s defamation law
Legal experts have pointed out glaring errors in the verdict, including the fact that it deliberately overlooked established precedent.
Way forward
India is in the company of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and South American dictatorships in continuing with criminal defamation. In 2016, Zimbabwe, which inherited the same British colonial legacy as India, also declared criminal defamation unconstitutional.
In keeping the law in our books, we risk Indian politicians taking a cue from Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who filed defamation cases against multiple individuals for calling him a “lightbulb”.
Despite the apex court’s verdict in 2016, it is worth making yet another attempt to decriminalise criminal defamation.
The Supreme Court while scrapping Section 377 also declared that colonial laws will not automatically be presumed valid and constitutional. This helped the court to decriminalise adultery. Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which define and impose jail term for criminal defamation, fall under that category.
MP Tathagata Sathpathy had introduced a private member’s bill in Parliament last year to repeal criminal defamation.
Criminal defamation is nothing but legal scare tactics, and it is #TimesUp for this colonial law as well.
This is an updated version of the article.