-
Tips for becoming a good boxer - November 6, 2020
-
7 expert tips for making your hens night a memorable one - November 6, 2020
-
5 reasons to host your Christmas party on a cruise boat - November 6, 2020
-
What to do when you’re charged with a crime - November 6, 2020
-
Should you get one or multiple dogs? Here’s all you need to know - November 3, 2020
-
A Guide: How to Build Your Very Own Magic Mirror - February 14, 2019
-
Our Top Inspirational Baseball Stars - November 24, 2018
-
Five Tech Tools That Will Help You Turn Your Blog into a Business - November 24, 2018
-
How to Indulge on Vacation without Expanding Your Waist - November 9, 2018
-
5 Strategies for Businesses to Appeal to Today’s Increasingly Mobile-Crazed Customers - November 9, 2018
Defamation sections in IPC should not be used to throttle dissent
The Supreme Court today took strong objection to the Tamil Nadu government using defamation as a tool to muzzle political opposition.
Advertisement
The court has asked the state government to furnish a full list of defamation cases it has filed, within two weeks. Such acts amount to curbing of free speech. “The defamation law can not be used as a political counter weapon”, the bench said. The Court observed that criticism of a government does not mandate that a defamation case be filed.
The apex court also expressed concern over the law of defamation being misused and the office of public prosecutor being used as a “post office” for misusing and initiating politically motivated cases against opponents.
The apex court had held that the state has no power to order suo motu release of seven convicts, viz Murugan, Santhan, Periarivalan (whose death sentence was commuted to life sentence) and that of Nalini, Robert Pius, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, serving life term by granting remission.
“The citizen’s right to criticise can not be atrophied by constant launching of criminal prosecution for defamation on each and every issue to silence the critics”, he had also stated. The AIADMK leader was of the strong opinion that Narayanasamy has a hidden agenda and his criticism came at a time when the Supreme Court had admitted the review petition of Tamil Nadu government. A Tirupur trial court had on Wednesday issued a non-bailable warrant against Vijayakanth and his wife, after they failed to appear before the court with regard to the defamation case against them.
The three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice P. Sathasivan (now Governor of Kerala) referred to the Constitution Bench the seven questions, including whether “consultation” with the Centre meant “concurrence” if the State government wants to grant remission of sentence and release the convict in a case investigated by CBI.
Advertisement
NB: By reading the comments you agree that they are the personal views and opinions of readers, for which Legally India has no liability whatsoever.