Can a firm initiate criminal defamation case: SC to examine

Can a company initiate criminal defamation case against a person?
The Supreme Court today agreed to examine the issue while seeking a response from the government on it.
"It is an important issue. We can't just let it go. The issue needs to be examined," a bench of Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra said while issuing notice to the Centre on a plea filed by Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai against whom Mahan Coal Ltd has filed a criminal defamation case for allegedly carrying out negative publicity and protests over purported irregularities in mining activities.
Senior advocate Shyam Diwan appearing for the Greenpeace activist said that companies did have reputation but asked whether they could file criminal defamation.

The bench said "it is a statutory issue and not a constitutional issue" and added that what difference does it have in case of a corporation or a company.
Diwan said that company can have a civil remedy but not criminal recourse.

To this, the bench asked why does it not have legal criminal recourse. "Suppose if anyone one wants to destroy business by destroying reputation, then why can't (it have) criminal recourse."
Diwan said that a company has reputation but it does not have right to life.
The bench said the issue needs to be looked into.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who also sought impleadment in the matter, said the recent judgement of the apex court upholding the defamation law did not deal with several issues.

He said that whole dispute was centred around public personalities and the matter should be sent to a five-judge constitution bench.
"You are a parliamentarian. If Parliament feels, it can change law. Why leave the matters for us to take a call," Justice Khehar said, adding that on next hearing, the court will see whether Swamy's impleadment plea can be allowed.
The activist in her plea said that lodging of a criminal
defamation case was not limited to this instance alone, but was "part of a pattern of strategic lawsuits against public participation whereby the corporations are using criminal defamation provisions, to persecute and limit the discussions and advocacy, and association around issues concerning issues of public interest and participation.

"With the intent of crippling the ability of petitioner, of forests community residents and of members and supporters of Greenpeace India Society, to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression, the respondent has embarked on a strategy designed to hijack the Indian justice system for its on private ends, using the criminal defamation provisions to file the instant case not only against the petitioner but also against the international executive director of Greenpeace International," Pillai's plea said.
It said that "corporations do not have the same right or interest to be protected as individual citizen from defamation, thus individuals such as directors, being allowed to file for alleged defamations as 'some persons aggrieved' in section 199 CrPC for the harm of reputation to a company because he can legitimately feel the 'pinch of it' is an unconstitutional restriction on the Freedom of Speech and Association with no compelling reasons pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Constitution."

It said, "a corporate entity cannot be imprisoned for criminal defamation and can only be fined. As such in the interest of Article 14 and equality before the law, it should be able to seek damages, not imprisonment".