A Supreme Court judge recently expressed significant frustration over the escalating use of criminal defamation laws by both private citizens and political factions, emphasizing that ‘it’s high time to decriminalize’ such slurs.
“I think the moment has come to remove this from the realm of criminal offenses,” Justice M.M. Sundresh stated on Monday, September 22, 2025.
Interestingly, less than a decade ago, the Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutional legality of criminal defamation, arguing that it safeguards one’s reputation, an integral part of the fundamental right to life. In 2016, during the landmark Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India case, the apex court concluded that criminal defamation law constituted a ‘reasonable restriction’ on the right to free speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Justice Sundresh’s recent comment, reflecting the judiciary’s growing unease with the rampant application of criminal defamation statutes, brings back into focus a critical question from the Subramanian Swamy case: can ‘defamation of any person by a private individual truly be considered a ‘crime’ if it serves no public interest?’
The judge’s oral observation was made while presiding over a Bench hearing a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, the organization behind The Wire news website, and a journalist. They sought to quash summons issued by a lower court in a criminal defamation case initiated by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Professor Amita Singh.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, drew attention to numerous instances where Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, had to approach the apex court to halt summons issued by trial courts based on criminal defamation complaints from various private individuals. Consequently, the Bench decided to combine the Foundation’s petition with the existing cluster of cases filed by Mr. Gandhi.
In recent months, various Supreme Court Benches have frequently stayed summons in criminal defamation cases, often accompanied by observations such as “do not be so sensitive” or “the court is not a platform to settle political disagreements.” Justice Sundresh’s latest remark adds to this growing chorus of judicial sentiment on the matter.
Back in January, the top court temporarily halted criminal defamation proceedings against Mr. Gandhi concerning his remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Subsequent months saw Mr. Gandhi filing separate petitions to challenge court summons in other criminal defamation cases, stemming from his alleged statements during the Bharat Jodo Yatra regarding reported clashes between Indian and Chinese soldiers, and his comments on Hindutva ideologue V.D. Savarkar.
The Supreme Court also paused criminal defamation proceedings against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, following a complaint about his ‘scorpion on Shivling’ comments, which were purportedly aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In August, the apex court dismissed an appeal from Karnataka Minister Shivananda S. Patil against a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed a defamation case against BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal, advising, “fight your political battles outside the court.”
In its March 2025 judgment on the Imran Pratapgarhi case, the Supreme Court had famously noted that words or actions alleged to be criminally defamatory “must be evaluated by the standards of reasonable, resolute, firm, and brave individuals, not by those with weak and wavering minds, nor by those who perceive danger in every opposing viewpoint.” The apex court quoted that a ‘reasonable person’ is akin to “the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus.”