Case 10 of 30 in Law Easy's Media Law series. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Supreme Court of India, decided 2010.
FACTS
In 2005, India Today published a survey on sexual habits, and the actress Khushboo gave her personal opinion on premarital relationships and safe sex. A Tamil daily reported further remarks she denied making, protests followed, and 23 criminal complaints were filed against her, mostly in Tamil Nadu, including for defamation and indecent representation of women.
WHAT THE COURT HELD
In a judgment by Justice B. S. Chauhan, the Supreme Court quashed all the complaints. The complainants were not persons aggrieved, as her remarks were not aimed at any individual or identifiable group, and expressing a view on social morality was neither obscene nor defamatory. Notions of morality are subjective, and morality and criminality are not coextensive. Disagreement should be met with speech, not criminal cases.
EXAM POINT
A general opinion not aimed at an identifiable person or group does not become defamation merely because many disagree with it.
PREVIOUS CASE: Ajay Goswami v. Union of India -
https://youtu.be/tPXGV6KRGRc
NEXT CASE: Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal -
https://youtu.be/diHVNaeDzpo
FULL PLAYLIST (all 30 cases in order):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY-t71WbMh6k
COMPLETE LECTURE (all 30 cases, 1 hour 52 minutes):
https://youtu.be/8AFvktrLPM4
Made for LL.B. students and for CLAT PG, UGC NET Law and judiciary exam preparation. Subscribe to Law Easy for the full law course. Notes:
https://www.thelaweasy.com
#MediaLaw #FreeSpeech #LawEasy