"Criminal defamation is increasingly being used as a tool of political lawfare." Critically examine this in light of the free speech guarantee under Article 19.

Article 19(2) lists defamation as a reasonable restriction on free speech, and Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 keeps it a crime [3]. Recent cases show it is often used as political lawfare. The problem lies more in how the law is used than in the law itself.

Evidence of lawfare

• The process becomes the punishment: The BJP's case over Congress's May 2023 "40% sarkar" ads kept a sitting CM, a former CM and the KPCC before a special court. The Karnataka High Court quashed it only in November 2026 [1].
• One party against another: The complainant was a rival party defending its government's record. It was not an individual defending their own reputation [1].
• Electoral stakes: The offence carries up to two years' imprisonment [3]. A sentence that long can lead to disqualification under the RP Act. Rahul Gandhi's 2023 "Modi surname" conviction did this until the Supreme Court stayed it.
• Chilling effect: Whether a true statement serves the public good is a question of fact [3]. So this defence usually needs a full trial.

Case for retaining it

• Reputation as dignity: In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court read reputation into Article 21. It held that criminal defamation is a proportionate restriction on speech [2].
• Misuse does not make a law invalid: The Court held that possible abuse does not, by itself, make a law unconstitutional [2].
• Safeguards exist: Good-faith opinion on public servants and public questions is exempt. The BNS also adds community service as a lighter penalty [3].
• Accountability: A made-up figure in a campaign ad reaches voters within days. A civil suit is slow and can only award damages.

Way forward

• Magistrates should test the good-faith exception before issuing summons, rather than leave it to High Courts years later.
• Complaints by one party against another should go through a Public Prosecutor, as is already done for high constitutional office-holders.
• Community service rather than jail should be the norm for campaign speech. Telangana's 2026 Bill moves the other way, proposing 1–7 years [4].
• The ECI should fast-track correction of false claims under the Model Code of Conduct.

In short, criminal defamation is constitutionally valid but is increasingly misused against political rivals. Early screening by courts, proportionate penalties and quick correction by the ECI can protect reputation without chilling democratic debate. That would respect both freedom of expression and individual dignity.