Supreme Court Says Time Has Come to Decriminalize Defamation: Insights from The Wire Case

On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a significant observation that may change the way Indian law treats defamation. While hearing a plea filed by The Wire against criminal defamation proceedings initiated by Professor Amita Singh of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked:

“I think time has come to decriminalize all this…”

This remark adds momentum to the long-standing debate on whether criminal defamation should continue to exist in Indian law, especially when most democracies treat defamation only as a civil wrong.

In this article, we explore the details of the case, the Court’s observations, the legal history of defamation laws in India, and the broader implications of this development.

Background of the Case Against The Wire

The criminal defamation proceedings against The Wire stem from a 2016 news report. The article stated that Professor Amita Singh, a faculty member at JNU, was at the helm of a group of teachers who allegedly compiled a 200-page dossier describing JNU as a “den of organised sex racket” and a hub of “secessionism and terrorism.”

The report claimed that the dossier, titled “Jawaharlal Nehru University: The Den of Secessionism and Terrorism”, was submitted to the JNU administration, accusing certain faculty members of encouraging separatist movements and legitimising what it called a “decadent culture.”

Following this publication, Professor Singh filed a criminal defamation case against The Wire and its reporter. In February 2017, a trial court issued summons to the news portal. Although the Supreme Court in 2024 set aside those summons and asked the Magistrate to reconsider the matter, fresh summons were again issued in January 2025. The Delhi High Court upheld those summons on May 7, 2025, prompting The Wire to move the Supreme Court once again.

The Supreme Court Hearing

During the latest hearing, the bench questioned the prolonged pendency of the case. Justice Sundresh’s remark about the need to decriminalize defamation resonated strongly with the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for The Wire.

The Court has issued notice to Professor Singh in response to The Wire’s plea, thereby keeping the matter alive for further consideration.

What the Law Says: Criminal Defamation in India

Defamation in India is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.

• Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) criminalizes defamation. This provision replaced Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the criminal law reforms.
• The offence of criminal defamation can lead to imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.

India remains one of the few democracies in the world to retain criminal defamation, while most countries provide only civil remedies like damages or injunctions.

The 2016 Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Defamation

It is important to recall that in 2016, the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions. Several public figures, including Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi, and Arvind Kejriwal, had challenged Section 499 IPC as violating the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

However, the Court held that the right to reputation is also part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, and therefore criminal defamation could be justified as a reasonable restriction on free speech.

That ruling has faced criticism for not aligning with global democratic standards and for imposing a chilling effect on free expression.

Why Decriminalization of Defamation is Being Debated

The Supreme Court’s latest remark signals a possible shift in judicial thinking. Several reasons support the call for decriminalizing defamation:

1. Chilling Effect on Free Speech
   Criminal defamation laws are often used to silence journalists, critics, and political opponents by subjecting them to criminal trials. The fear of imprisonment discourages investigative reporting and critical commentary.
2. Civil Remedies Are Sufficient
   In most democracies, defamation is addressed through civil suits for damages. Monetary compensation is considered an adequate remedy without criminalizing speech.
3. Backlog in Criminal Courts
   Criminalizing defamation clogs the criminal justice system with cases that could be better resolved through civil processes.
4. Global Practice
   Countries like the UK and the US have either abolished or severely restricted the scope of criminal defamation. India remains an outlier in retaining criminal penalties.
5. Freedom of Press
   A free press is essential in a democracy. Criminal defamation laws give powerful individuals an easy tool to intimidate media houses and reporters.

The Wire Case in Context

The Wire’s case demonstrates how criminal defamation proceedings can drag on for years. Filed in 2016, the matter continues to be litigated in 2025 — nearly a decade later.

• The trial court issued summons in 2017.
• The Supreme Court intervened in 2024 and sent the matter back.
• Fresh summons were issued in January 2025.
• The Delhi High Court upheld them in May 2025.
• The Supreme Court is now reconsidering the matter.

This long-drawn process itself is a form of harassment for journalists, even before guilt is established.

Possible Impact of the Supreme Court’s Observation

Although Justice Sundresh’s remark was not part of a final judgment, it carries significant weight. If the Court eventually rules in favour of decriminalization, it could:

• Strike down Section 356 of the BNS as unconstitutional.
• Restrict defamation cases to civil courts, where remedies would be limited to damages.
• Provide stronger protection for journalists, authors, academics, and citizens expressing opinions.
• Align Indian law more closely with international human rights standards on free speech.

Such a ruling would also influence ongoing cases, including those against politicians and media outlets, where criminal defamation is frequently invoked.

Counter-Arguments: Should Criminal Defamation Stay?

Supporters of retaining criminal defamation argue:

1. Right to Reputation
   They emphasize that the right to reputation is part of Article 21, and must be protected against malicious attacks.
2. Deterrence
   Criminal penalties act as a stronger deterrent against reckless or false publications.
3. Civil Suits Are Slow and Ineffective
   Given India’s slow civil litigation process, many believe criminal law provides quicker relief.
4. Balance of Rights
   Free speech is not absolute; protecting reputations maintains social harmony.

The Supreme Court will need to weigh these arguments against the global trend and the growing need to protect free expression in India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s remark in The Wire’s case — that “time has come to decriminalize defamation” — could signal a turning point in Indian defamation law. While the 2016 ruling upheld criminal defamation, the evolving jurisprudence and international practices suggest that India may eventually move towards treating defamation solely as a civil wrong.

For The Wire, the case represents both a legal battle and a test of press freedom. For India, it is an opportunity to redefine the boundaries between the right to free speech and the right to reputation in a democratic society.

As the Court continues to hear the matter, journalists, politicians, and civil society will keenly watch whether India finally takes the step of decriminalizing defamation — a reform long overdue in the world’s largest democracy.

Also Read

Supreme Court Restores Bail in SDPI Leader KS Shan Murder Case: Antecedents Alone Not a Ground to Cancel Bail

Supreme Court Clarifies: Touching Private Parts of Minor Is Not Rape, But Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act