Defamation laws in India, particularly Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, have been widely criticised for being outdated and prone to misuse. Unlike in the United Kingdom, where criminal defamation has been largely abolished, India continues to treat defamation as a criminal offence, allowing influential individuals and politicians to file multiple cases across various jurisdictions to harass and silence critics. The case of actress Khushboo, who faced numerous criminal defamation complaints for expressing her views on premarital sex, highlights the weaponisation of these laws. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed these complaints, recognising that frivolous defamation cases undermine free speech and burden the legal system. Similarly, Dr. Subramanian Swamy has challenged the constitutionality of these laws, arguing that they impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression and should be struck down or reformed.

The indiscriminate filing of defamation cases not only intimidates individuals but also poses significant financial and logistical burdens on the accused. Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists exposing corruption often face criminal complaints across multiple states, making legal defence nearly impossible. This practice discourages investigative journalism and public discourse, effectively serving as a tool for censorship rather than protection of reputation. If abolishing criminal defamation entirely is deemed too radical, an alternative reform could be allowing the accused to choose the jurisdiction where the case is tried, preventing forum shopping and ensuring a fairer legal process. With many democracies worldwide moving away from criminalising defamation, it is high time India reconsiders these laws to strike a balance between reputation and the fundamental right to free speech.