India, Sept. 24 -- The Supreme Court's recent observation that defamation should be decriminalised is timely, but achieving this will need a concrete display of intent from the judiciary and the political class. The outdated provisions of the criminal defamation statute were first instituted by the British in 1860 to protect the interests of the colonial government and thwart any push towards unfettered public debate. Public order and security were used as blanket justifications to throttle the freedom movement, deny Indians the legitimate right to express dissent and protest colonial policies, and maintain an undemocratic hegemony of a few over a subjugated nation. Unfortunately, not only did independent India keep this anachronistic offence on its books, but even the recent Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita refused to scrap it. By doing this, India has fallen behind many modern democracies that have done away with such statutes, including, for most cases, the UK. In 2016, India's Supreme Court dismissed petitions from politicians and activists who said that the provision undermined free speech, and held that a person's right to personal reputation was part of the fundamental right to life. The broadly worded statute makes it easy for powerful actors to institute legal proceedings for what is essentially a speech offence. Despite the apex court asking magistrates to be more discerning while adjudicating such cases and ensuring that generic statements are not prosecuted against, the lengthy and painstaking legal process has a chilling effect on free speech. This newspaper has also previously noted that criminal defamation is a peculiar offence that is essentially a private remedy (which means that only another individual or group can bring the charge of criminal defamation against someone, not the State). Yet, the question of who can file a criminal defamation complaint is often left open - allowing a large and forever shifting class of people to initiate proceedings. It is not this newspaper's position that defamation be done away with as a class of offence. It warrants a serious and robust law, but such a recourse already exists in civil law. A democracy must be cautious in criminalising speech acts and do it only under rare circumstances. Both the courts and the governments must push for a re-look at criminal defamation laws. And the apex court must follow up on its lofty statement with some real action....