Current affairs- May 14, 2016
SC upholds law on criminal defamation
Dismissing a batch of
petitions, the Supreme Court has upheld the law on criminal defamation. The
court has observed that the law is constitutionally valid and said the law has
a “chilling effect” on free speech.
- It observed, “Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal
Code make defamation a criminal offence. A person’s right to freedom of
speech has to be balanced with the other person’s right to reputation
and therefore the two Sections are necessary.”
- It also rejected an argument that
defamation could become a criminal offence only if it incited to make an
offence. It said that defamation had its own independent identity, which
has enabled the state to maintain a balance between fundamental rights.
- The court also pointed out the distinction between sections 499 and 500 on one hand and section 66A (prosecution for obscene social posts) of the Information Technology Act on the other, saying the latter was struck down by the apex court on the ground of vagueness and procedural unreasonableness.
Background:
The ruling was delivered on
a petition filed first by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politician Subramanian
Swamy against provisions criminalizing defamation. Congress vice-president
Rahul Gandhi and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, among others, later
became parties to the case. They now have to face criminal defamation
proceedings initiated against them.
_______________________________________________________________
New IPR policy retains access
to cheap drugs
The government has
announced a new intellectual property policy, speeding up the online
registration of patents and trademarks.
- The new policy seeks to encourage innovation and improve access to healthcare, food security and environmental protection.
Highlights of the policy:
- The Policy will allow compulsory licensing with restrictions in case of a public health emergency such as epidemics and it is compliant with the World Trade Organization’s guidelines.
- The policy seeks to put in place a legal framework that will encourage the IPR regime and reduce the time taken by the government to approve a trademark to a month by 2017. Currently, the process takes more than a year.
- The policy makes the department of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) the nodal agency for regulating IP rights in the country.
- The Policy states “India shall remain committed to the (World Trade Organisation’s) Doha Declaration on Trade Related IPR Agreement (TRIPS) and Public Health.”
- It also says “India will continue to utilise the legislative space and flexibilities available in international treaties and the TRIPS Agreement.” These flexibilities include the sovereign right of countries to use provisions such as Section 3(d) and CLs for ensuring the availability of essential and life-saving drugs at affordable prices.
- To ensure strong and effective IPR laws, the Policy states India will engage constructively in the negotiation of international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders.
The Policy lays down the
following seven objectives:
IPR Awareness:
Outreach and
Promotion – To create public awareness about the economic, social and cultural
benefits of IPRs among all sections of society.
Generation of IPRs – To
stimulate the generation of IPRs.
Legal and Legislative
Framework – To have strong and effective IPR laws, which balance the interests
of rights owners with larger public interest.
Administration and
Management – To modernize and strengthen service-oriented IPR administration.
Commercialization of IPRs –
Get value for IPRs through commercialization.
Enforcement and
Adjudication – To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for
combating IPR infringements.
Human development– To
strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for
teaching, training, research and skill building in IPRs.
Background:
The IPR policy approved by
the Cabinet on Thursday night, comes in the backdrop of the US Trade
Representative (USTR), in its annual (2016 edition) Special 301 Report (on the
global state of IPR protection and enforcement) retaining India on the
‘Priority Watch List’ for “lack of sufficient measurable improvements to its
IPR framework.”
_____________________________________________________________
Protection to public servants
upheld
Calling public servants a
“different class”, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a provision in
the Cr.PC allowing them to file a complaint in a sessions court through a
public prosecutor for alleged defamatory comments on their official acts.
Details:
- With this, the court rejected
demands to strike down Section 199(2) to (4) of the Cr.PC. The court
rejected the argument that this section creates a separate class.
- It also dismissed the contention that the classification enumerated in this provision has no rationale and does not bear constitutional scrutiny.
Observations made by the
court:
- This provision makes it clear that a public servant is entitled to file a complaint through the public prosecutor in respect of his conduct in discharge of public functions. Public functions stand on a different footing. The provision gives them protection for their official acts. There cannot be defamatory attacks on them because of discharge of their due functions. In that sense, they constitute a different class.
- Also, one is bound to tolerate
criticism, dissent and discordance but not expected to tolerate defamatory
attack. And hence this right of a public servant to file a defamation
complaint is over and above his or her right under Section 199 (6) to
personally file a complaint before a Magistrate.
_____________________________________________________________
Facts
Indian vessel MT Distya Ameya,
which was detained by the United Nations for carrying disputed Libyan oil,
has been freed after the U.N. lifted its sanctions on the vessel. This
follows the intervention of the Indian government and the
Directorate-General (DG) of Shipping. The tanker was blacklisted by the
U.N. on April 26 when it sailed from the Al-Herega port in Libya after
picking up over 6.5 lakh barrels of oil for Malta. It was charged that the
vessel violated the sanctions of the U.N. as the interim Government of
Libya is not recognised by the global body. Following the instructions of
the DG Shipping, the vessel sailed back to Libya and discharged its entire
oil cargo.
