Difficult Word/ Phrase | Contextual Sense |
Chilling effect | a discouraging or deterring effect, esp. one resulting from a restrictive law or regulation |
Defamation | A false accusation of an offence or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions |
Conviction | a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed |
Flag | to draw attention to (something) |
Rigour | The quality of being valid and rigorous |
Bedevil | Harass persistently in cruel or annoying way |
Jibe | An aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect |
Allege | Declared but not proved |
Defamatory | harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign |
Sustain | Lengthen or extend in duration or space |
Aggrieved | Emotionally hurt, upset or annoyed |
Slur | A disparaging remark |
Discretion | Freedom to act or judge on one’s own |
Grave | Causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm |
Fret | Be agitated or irritated |
Legacy | being or having to do with something, esp. something outdated or otherwise undesirable, that is carried over from a previous system, business operation, etc |
Contemporary | Belonging to the present time |
Misdeed | Improper, wicked or immoral behaviour |
Dismay | The feeling of despair in the face of obstacles |
Chilling effect (a discouraging or deterring effect, esp. one resulting from a restrictive law or regulation): On defamation (A false accusation of an offence or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions), free speech and the Rahul Gandhi case
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction (a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed) and jail term flags (to draw attention to (something)) need to abolish criminal defamation
The rigours (The quality of being valid and rigorous) of the law and the tribulations of politics have come together to bedevil (Harass persistently in cruel or annoying way) Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. An election-time jibe (An aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect) he had made in 2019 — ‘how come all of these thieves have Modi in their names?’ — has been declared by a court in Surat to be defamatory. Mr. Gandhi has been sentenced to two years in prison, the maximum sentence for criminal defamation, and disqualified from his membership in the Lok Sabha. Both the conviction and sentence raise legal questions. Does the remark amount to defaming anyone in particular, or to people with the surname ‘Modi’ as a group? Case law indicates that the expression ‘collection of persons’ used in Section 499 of the IPC, with reference to those who can be defamed, has to be an identifiable class or group and that the particular member who initiates criminal proceedings for defamation must demonstrate personal harm or injury by the alleged (Declared but not proved) defamatory (harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign) statement. It is difficult to sustain (Lengthen or extend in duration or space) the argument that all those with the surname, and not merely the three individuals including Prime Minister Narendra Modi who were referred to, can be aggrieved (Emotionally hurt, upset or annoyed) persons. Also, it is not clear if the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, had shown that he was aggrieved by the alleged slur (A disparaging remark) either personally or as a member of the ‘Modi’ group.
The maximum sentence is also troubling. Statutes prescribe maximum jail terms so that trial courts use their discretion (Freedom to act or judge on one’s own) to award punishments in proportion to the gravity of the crime. It is questionable whether attacking an indeterminate set of people with a general remark will amount to defamation, and even if it did, whether it is so grave (Causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm) as to warrant the maximum sentence. The correctness of the judgment will be decided on appeal, but the political cost to Mr. Gandhi in the form of disqualification from the House and from electoral contest will have a lasting impact, unless he obtains a stay on the conviction rather than mere suspension of sentence. In a country that often frets (Be agitated or irritated) over criminalisation of politics, corruption and hate speeches, it is ironic that criminal defamation should overwhelm the political career of a prominent leader. A modern democracy should not treat defamation as a criminal offence at all. It is a legacy (being or having to do with something, esp. something outdated or otherwise undesirable, that is carried over from a previous system, business operation, etc) of an era in which questioning authority was considered a grave crime. In contemporary (Belonging to the present time) times, criminal defamation mainly acts as a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds (Improper, wicked or immoral behaviour). In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation without adequate regard to the chilling effect it has on free speech, and to that, one must now add, political opposition and dissent. Opposition parties expressing dismay (The feeling of despair in the face of obstacles) at the verdict against Mr. Gandhi should include abolishing criminal defamation in their agenda.
Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.
- Sign Up on Practicemock for Updated Current Affairs, Free Topic Tests and Free Mini Mocks
- Sign Up Here to Download Free Study Material
Free Mock Tests for the Upcoming Exams