On the necessity of the law, the Commission has concluded that the conduct criminalized by the defamation law safeguards a crucial personality interest – that of reputation.
“The ability to express oneself freely, especially politically, is essential for achieving dignity in areas like self-actualization, self-governance, and the recognition of human value. Also, whereas the right to political expression is central to the concept of freedom of expression, the right to reputation is closer to the periphery,” it has stated.
The Commission has argued that retention of the law will have a stronger deterrent effect as compared to possible monetary damages in civil lawsuits and that there is public interest in protecting reputation.
On the inadequacy of civil defamation, the report states that not only does the crime of defamation serve a legitimate and important goal of the criminal law by protecting a person’s reputation from the intentional publication of a lie, but it provides protection in cases where the civil remedy would be deficient.
“Thus, the civil remedy does not provide a practical alternative where the victim does not have the financial means to pursue it, or where the offending party does not have the means to satisfy an order of payment of monetary damages to the victim,” it adds.
Source: Barandbench
