caution lest anyone gets outraged. Even truth is not accorded the same value as order.14 In what follows, we examine relevant laws, case law and cases for each of the grounds mentioned above in detail. It is against the background of the precedence of order over speech that these analyses have to be read. Defamation Both civil and criminal remedies exist in Indian law for someone aggrieved of defamation, one of the eight exceptions to Article 19(1)(a) mentioned in the Constitution. Under the un-codified civil law remedy, one can obtain injunctive orders and/or claim damages for the publication of allegedly defamatory material. The criminal remedy to defamation, codified in sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishes the crime with imprisonment and fines. Depending on the outcome desired, parties file for either a civil or criminal remedy, or for both. What is common among the two types of remedies is that they are routinely used by powerful players to strong-arm critics into silence. The civil remedy is often used to obtain injunctive orders in the absence of respondents to the case, in addition to huge sums of money, as damages. Most recently, Baba Ramdev, a godman, politician and businessman, got an ex parte injunction against Juggernaut publishers, Flipkart and Amazon, stopping them from distributing a biography of him by Priyanka Pathak-Narain, on the grounds of it being defamatory.15 In another recent case, Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrashekhar was seeking to prevent online news media outlet The Wire from publishing two stories about him that had a very clear public interest angle.16 The City Civil Court of Bangalore passed an ex parte order for temporary injunction against publication of the two articles, which highlighted the conflicts of interest between the political roles Chandrashekhar holds, on the one hand, and his investments in defence manufacturing firms and the news media 14 Law Commission of India. (2017). Report 267 Hate Speech. New Delhi: Law Commission. www.lawcomssionofindia.nic.in/reports/ Report267.pdf; Narrain, S. (2016). Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment, and the (Im)Possibility of Free Speech. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(17). http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/17/specialarticles/hate-speech-hurt-sentiment-and-impossibility-freespeech.html 15 IANS. (2017, 11 August). Juggernaut restrained from distributing book on Ramdev, says will appeal. Indian Express. www. indianexpress.com/article/india/juggernaut-restrained-fromdistributing-book-on-ramdev-says-will-appeal-4792196 16 Scroll. (2017, 7 March). In highly unusual move, Bengaluru court orders The Wire to remove articles on Rajeev Chandrasekhar. Scroll. www.scroll.in/article/831159/in-highly-unusual-movebengaluru-court-orders-the-wire-to-remove-articles-on-rajeevchandrasekhar outlet Republic TV, on the other. There are numerous such instances of ex parte injunctions that have been obtained in order to silence the publishing of material on the internet as well as in print media.17 The criminal remedy is especially useful for purposes of intimidation by politicians, actors, corporations and other powerful entities, as the offence is punishable with jail time and not just payment of monetary damages. The offence is bailable, non-cognisable and compoundable. Sections 499 and 500 read as follows:18 499. Defamation.— Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 500. Punishment for defamation.— Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The asymmetry of power between those who bring the charges and those who are charged for defamatory speech on the internet is frequently steep in 17 Scroll. (2017, 17 October). ‘Attempt to gag’: The Wire criticises injunction against it in Jay Shah defamation case. Scroll. https:// scroll.in/latest/854371/attempt-to-gag-the-wire-criticisesinjunction-against-it-in-jay-shah-defamation-case 18 The illustrations and exceptions text in the section have not been included, in the interest of space. INDIA / 53