Defamation associated with speeches against political representatives has a relatively advanced global jurisprudence. Little attention has been paid, however, to defamatory speech by political representatives, which may have consequences for democratic representation. While several jurisdictions accord higher protection to defamatory political speech, in India, a political speech by an elected representative, when construed as defamatory by a court, could lead to disqualification from membership of legislature and repudiation of an electoral mandate. This article uses disqualification on grounds of criminal defamation as an anchor to generate an academic inquiry into the relationship between speech and representation in liberal democracies. Through a contextually detailed study of the defamation law in India, in tandem with comparative jurisprudence, this article inserts a representation argument in the analysis of defamation, which has conventionally focussed on the speech argument, to reconceptualize defamatory speech as having a deliberative potential. In doing so, the article unsettles the presumption of reputational harm from defamatory political speech and advances a case for its decriminalization.
AllredS. (1988). From connick to confusion: The struggle to define speech on matters of public concern. Indiana Law Journal, 64(1), 43–84.
2.
ArendtH. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
3.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.
4.
BarendtE. (1999). What is the point of libel law?Current Legal Problems, 52(1), 110–125.
5.
BarendtE. (2007). Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press.
6.
BasselL. (2017). The politics of listening: Possibilities and challenges for democratic life. Palgrave Pivot.
7.
BhatiaG. (2016, May13). The Supreme Court’s criminal defamation judgment: Glaringly flawed, constitution and philosophy. Constitutional Law and Philosophy. https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/the-supreme-courts-criminal-defamation-judgment-glaringly-flawed-constitution-and-philosophy/
8.
BhatiaG. (2023, March29). A disturbing example of the normalisation of lawfare. The Hindu.
9.
BoomgardJ., & BromR. (Eds). (2017). Being public: How art creates the public. Valiz.
10.
Case of Handyside v. The United Kingdom (1976). Application no. 5493/72.
11.
Chaman Lal v. The State of Punjab (1970). AIR 1372.
12.
ChatterjeeP. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton University Press.
13.
Coroners and Justice Act. (2009). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents
14.
CramI. (2006). Contested words legal restrictions on freedom of speech in liberal democracies. Ashgate.
15.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967). 388 US.
16.
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1993). UKHL J0218-2.
17.
DhavanR. (2008). Private lives and public reputations. In DhavanR. (Ed.), Publish and be damned (pp. 101–128). Tulika Books.
18.
DworkinR. (2009). Foreword. In HareI. & WeinsteinJ. (Eds), Extreme speech and democracy (pp. vii–ix). OUP.
19.
ECHR. (2022). Guide on article 10 of the European convention of human rights: Freedom of expression. Council of Europe. https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_10_eng-pdf
20.
Election Commission of India. (1970). Report on the mid-term general election in India, 1968-69 (Vol. 1).
21.
FeinbergJ. (1984). Harm to others, the moral limits of the criminal law. Oxford University Press.
22.
GalstonW. (1991). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and duties in the liberal state. Cambridge University Press.
GuptaA. (2023, April4). Reform defamation law. The Indian Express.
26.
K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (2005). Appeal (civil) 8213 of 2001.
27.
KaminskyA. (1982). Defamation law: Once a public figure always a public figure?Hofstra Law Review, 10(3), 803–830.
28.
KleinigJ. (1978). Crime and the concept of harm. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(1), 27–36.
29.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997). HCA 25.
30.
LassiterJ. C. (1974). Scandalum Magnatum: The ‘scandal of magnates’ in English law, society, and politics (Master’s thesis, College of William & Mary).
31.
LassiterJ. C. (1978). Defamation of peers: The rise and decline of the action for Scandalum Magnatum, 1497-1773. The American Journal of Legal History, 22(3), 216–236.
32.
Law Commission of India. (2024). The Law of Criminal Defamation (Report No. 285, Govt. of India). https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2002006
33.
LewisJ. B., & OttleyB. L. (2014). New York Times v. Sullivan at 50: Despite criticism, the actual malice standard still provides ‘breathing space’ for communications in the public interest. DePaul Law Review, 64(1), 1–64.
34.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors (2013). Writ Petition (Civil) No. 490 of 2005.
35.
Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Others (2018). WP (Civil) No. 231 of 2005.
36.
MacedoS. (1990). Liberal virtues: Citizenship, virtue and community. Oxford University Press.
37.
Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia (2022). Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2022.
38.
MartinK. (1996). Defamation defined. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 43(1), 2–11.
39.
MbembeA. (2001). On the postcolony. University of California.
40.
McNamaraL. (2007). Reputation and defamation. Oxford University Press.
41.
MeiklejohnA. (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government. Kennikat Press.
42.
National Media Ltd and Ors v. Bogoshi (579/96) (1998). ZASCA 94.
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2017). Defamation and insult laws in the OSCE region: A comparative study. The Representative on Freedom of the Media. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf
46.
P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (Cbi/Spe) (1998). Appeal (crl) 1207 of 1997.
47.
PartlettD. (2019). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). In RolphD. (Ed.), Landmark cases in defamation law (pp. 139–147). Hart Publishing.
48.
PhillipsA. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press.
49.
PostR. (1986). The social foundations of defamation law: Reputation and the constitution. California Law Review, 74(3), 691–742.
50.
PoundR. (1915). Interests of personality. Harvard Law Review, 28(4), 343–365.
51.
R. Rajagopal v. State of TN (1994). 1995 AIR 264.
52.
Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwerbhai Modi & Anr. (2023). Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8644/2023.
53.
Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwerbhai Modi (2023). R/Criminal Revision Application No. 521 of 2023 (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad).
54.
Reynolds. (2001). Reynold v. Times Newspaper Ltd 2 AC 127.
55.
Rosenblatt v. Baer383 US 75 (1966).
56.
SchauerF. (1982). Free speech, a philosophical enquiry. Cambridge University Press.
57.
ScheppeleK. L. (2004). Constitutional ethnography: An introduction. Law & Society Review, 38(3), 389–405.
58.
ShriffinS. V. (2015). A thinker-based approach to freedom of speech. In Speech matters: On lying, morality, and the law. Princeton University Press.
59.
Sim v. Stretch (1936). All England Law Reports.
60.
Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024). Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019.
61.
SorialS. (2012). Sedition and the advocacy of violence, free speech and counter-terrorism. Routledge.
62.
State of Madras v. V. G. Row. Union of India & State (1952). AIR 196.
63.
State of U. P. v. Mohammad Azam Khan (2023). Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 (Rampur Court).
64.
SteensonM. K. (2014). Damages in defamation law. William Mitchell Law Review, 40(4), 1492–1542.
65.
StoneA., & EvansS. (2006). Australia: Freedom of speech and insult in the High Court of Australia. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(4), 677–688.
66.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law and Ors. (2016). Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014.
67.
SunsteinC. (1992). Free speech now. University of Chicago Law Review, 59(1), 255–327.
68.
The Defamation Act. (2013). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents
69.
TiwariM. (2023, April10). Right of the opposition. The Indian Express.
70.
TuckerG. (1803). Of wrongs and their remedies, respecting the rights of persons. In Blackstone commentaries. Birch and Small.
71.
TushnetM. (2012). New York Times v. Sullivan around the world. Alabama Law Review, 66(2), 337–356.
72.
TV4 Kannada. (2019, April13). Lok Sabha elections 2019: Rahul Gandhi speech at Kolar, Karnataka [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6LexaGQQFE
73.
UrbinatiN. (2000). Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation. Political Theory, 28(6), 758–786.
74.
WeaverR. L. (2016). Defamation and democracy. In KenyonA. (Ed.), Comparative defamation, and privacy law (pp. 82–95). Cambridge University Press.
75.
WeaverR. L., & PartlettD. F. (2006). Defamation, free speech, and democratic governance. NYLS Law Review, 50, 57–80.
76.
WebberG. (2021). Proportionality and limitations on freedom of speech. In StoneA. & SchauerF. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of freedom of speech. Oxford University Press.
77.
WilsonJ. (1804). Works of honourable James Wilson (Vol. 3). Lorenzo Press.
78.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
