Latest news with #DefamationBill
Indian Express
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Sumit Chakravartty was a gentle crusader who practised journalism fearlessly
Sumit Chakravartty, eminent journalist and editor of Mainstream Weekly, passed away in Kolkata on July 26. He was 79. Chakravartty is survived by his wife, Gargi, historian and CPI leader, and his son, Sagnik, editor with Prasar Bharati's DD India. Chakravartty had been ailing for some time. He had moved to Kolkata in September 2023 to be with family and close associates. As a young man, Sumit had the unenviable task of living up to his parents' legacy. His mother, Renu Chakravartty, was elected thrice to the Lok Sabha and emerged as a 'striking' parliamentarian and trade union leader. She was the niece of B C Roy, first Chief Minister of West Bengal, who inspired her to take up political work. Both parents shared the Oxbridge connection and had joined the British Communist Party as students. His father, Nikhil Chakravartty, founded Mainstream in 1962. Over the years, it became a platform for critical discourse in the country. He was the 'father figure' for the press freedom movement; whether it was the Emergency (1975-77) or the Defamation Bill (1989), he always led from the front. He declined the Padma Bhushan in 1990, saying 'journalists should not be identified with the establishment'. Sumit's legacy brought high expectations, and public scrutiny. He was Patriot's Moscow correspondent and worked with The Daily before joining Mainstream. He came out with flying colours by combining journalism and activism. His journalism fostered informed debate and gave space to diverse viewpoints, while his activism was driven by values of democracy, secularism, scientific temper and Gandhian antyodaya. From Singur to Bhima Koregaon — statements, appeals, reports and documents were featured in Mainstream. Sumit was a one-man army. We had launched the Working Group on Alternative Strategies (WGRAS) — a voluntary civil society initiative — in March 1992 to work on policy alternatives for an equitable development paradigm. Sumit was a founder member of its core group, and I was its convener. But we were soon overtaken by events. With the destruction of the Babri Masjid, our full attention turned to communal harmony. Senior journalist Dileep Padgaonkar had appealed for the Prime Minister to lead a citizens' march on Rajpath on January 26, 1993, for communal harmony, similar to the one held on January 26, 1963, after the Chinese aggression. We waited, but nothing was happening. So, on the night of January 25, 1993, WGRAS issued an appeal, calling for a citizens' march. It was successfully completed from Vijay Chowk to Amar Jawan Jyoti at India Gate, and we sent out a very positive signal across the country. In 2004, I experienced Sumit's incredible integrity as an editor. He published an article I had written about a top-notch politico's about-turn from his professed views. Notwithstanding the bitterness it caused in his relationship with the politico, Sumit remained resolute in my defence even when he came under vehement personal attack. In 2008, a documentary film project of mine was facing rough weather. One day we met at the India International Centre and he said he wanted to talk to me. We walked to Lodhi Garden and sat on a bench. Sumit took out his chequebook and wrote out a cheque of Rs 2 lakh for me. I protested, but he would not listen. 'I know the problem you are facing; give it back when you can,' he said. That was the man, helpful to a fault, and one who would internalise the problems of his close associates as his own. Sumit donated the print issues of Mainstream from 1962 to 2020 to the Archives of Contemporary India at Ashoka University. His spirited journalism-activism, in which he invested his gentle, simple, sensitive, grounded and noble lifeblood, has now moved into the digital space and is published every week. The writer is editor, Citizens First Television, and convener, Working Group on Alternative Strategies, New Delhi
Irish Examiner
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Ireland's new defamation law ‘falls short of EU SLAPP directive'
Ireland's new defamation laws risk incurring EU legal action, the Government has been warned. The Dáil last week passed the long-awaited Defamation Bill, with the Seanad passing it at second stage last Wednesday. However, a group of organisations, including the National Union of Journalists, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, and RTÉ have argued that while the Defamation Bill contains provisions to stop so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) cases, it 'fails to include the robust safeguards required to meaningfully protect public interest speech'. Such SLAPP cases usually involve affluent plaintiffs attempting to silence or censor criticism by suing critics, forcing them to spend huge sums on legal fees defending their position. The Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network group says that, nearly a decade after the review of the Defamation Act 2009 began, 'this is a frustrating outcome and a missed opportunity to protect the freedom of expression that is the lifeblood of our democracy'. Law falls short of transposing full directive The group says that while the bill brings in provisions that give effect to aspects of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, it falls short of transposing the directive's full set of minimum standards and protections, which Ireland is legally required to implement in full by May 2026. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the bill apply only to defamation proceedings and do not extend to privacy, copyright, or data protection cases. The group stated: The Government has provided no clear explanation of how it intends to extend protections beyond defamation in line with its EU obligations. They said that the legislation also 'omits key components of the directive that could have been readily included'. These include provision for third-party interventions in support of SLAPP defendants (Article 9), security for damages (Article 10) and a reversal of the burden of proof (Article 12). The legislation also fails to incorporate the protections against SLAPPs initiated in non-EU countries (Articles 16 and 17). 'By failing to incorporate these core safeguards, the Irish Government exposes itself to potential infringement proceedings from the European Commission," the group stated. Recommendation on countering SLAPPs It said the Government could and should have drawn on established international best practices, including the Council of Europe's recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs. 'This recommendation includes vital safeguards, such as an automatic stay of proceedings while an early dismissal motion is being heard, which are designed to protect against abusive litigation. "It provides clear, practical guidance for safeguarding free expression and democratic accountability. Yet the Government appears to have almost entirely disregarded it.' Speaking in the Seanad on the bill last week, justice minister Jim O'Callaghan said full transposition 'will be done'. 'Let us remember that this is a defamation bill. It is appropriate that we just transpose into the Defamation Bill those aspects of the SLAPP directive that relate to defamation.' Jessica Ní Mhainín of Index on Censorship said: 'It is ironic that this piece of legislation was passed in the Dáil on European Day of Action against SLAPPs because it completely fails to offer meaningful protection to SLAPP defendants. "Its complex and flawed provisions risk becoming tools only accessible to those with significant legal resources — not the individuals most often targeted with SLAPPs.'
Irish Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Dáil is expected to pass Bill reforming defamation law this week
The Dáil is expected to pass the remaining stages of the Defamation Bill this week, clearing the path for the legislation to proceed to the Seanad. A number of government and opposition amendments are to be considered in the Dáil, with Sinn Féin seeking to have the Bill amended to allow the retention of juries in defamation cases. Abolishing juries in these cases is one of the key provisions of the Bill and is a move long sought by media organisations keen to reduce the cost and length of defamation actions. Juries in personal injury cases were abolished many years ago. The Bill also introduces protections for media organisations against strategic lawsuits against public participation – or 'Slapps' – which are defamation actions taken by usually rich or powerful individuals designed to intimidate media organisations in their coverage of such people. READ MORE The amendments introduce a power for the High Court to award damages against a party which takes a 'Slapp' action against a media outlet. Having been initiated by the previous government, the Bill was reintroduced to the Dáil order paper in spring and is now expected to passed by the Oireachtas this year. The Bill also contains measures to reduce legal costs in defamation cases as well as provisions designed to make it less costly for plaintiffs to obtain the identity of people who post defamatory content online. There is also a new defence for retailers subjected to defamation claims for challenging people on whether they have paid before leaving a shop. Sinn Féin amendments seeking the retention of juries in defamation cases were previously put during the committee stage of the bill in April, but were rejected by the Government. When opposition TDs pointed out to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan that he had cautioned against the abolition of juries when he was a backbencher in the last government, Mr O'Callaghan said 'one of the consequences of membership of a political party is the need for compromise'. Mr O'Callaghan said he supported the Fianna Fáil manifesto of the last general election supporting the proposed legislation. 'A programme for government was agreed between the two parties. I am a minister in that government,' he said. 'I am bound, because of the principles of compromise and collective responsibility, to give effect to what was agreed in the programme for government.'
Belfast Telegraph
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Belfast Telegraph
Martin says defamation reforms will happen ‘quickly'
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, in which he denies any involvement. Last month, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs. At the time, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said there were 'profound' implications from the jury's decision. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could – and they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression.' Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary said she had entered the witness box in the trial with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me'. The broadcaster's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award as it takes time to consider an appeal. Asked if he agreed with the BBC's assessment of the case on Thursday, Taoiseach Micheal Martin said: 'I think the defamation laws need to be changed – we're going to change them.' Mr Martin said the Government would pass the legislation 'as quickly as we can' and paid tribute to Ms O'Leary. 'I think we do need to get it through to create a balanced environment for commentary and for investigative journalism.' He added: 'Jennifer O'Leary is a first-class journalist.' Among the key provisions in the Defamation Bill highlighted by government are the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions, which is hoped to reduce delays and legal costs; and of protections against strategic lawsuits, also known as SLAPPs actions, viewed as having a chilling effect on public interest journalism and press freedom. The draft laws also include a statutory power for the Circuit Court to issue a 'Norwich Pharmacal' order, allowing a digital services provider to identify an anonymous poster of defamatory statements online. Mr Martin, who took legal action against Google at the High Court for information about who had financed fake ads which claimed he had endorsed specific cryptocurrencies, added: 'We've published heads of the bill, and (Justice Minister Jim) O'Callaghan is going to proceed, we're going to do it in this Government.'
RTÉ News
30-04-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Opposition challenge removal of juries in High Court defamation cases
Opposition parties have tabled a series of amendments opposing the removal of juries in High Court defamation actions. Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy told the Dáil that he is opposed to what is the centrepiece of the Government's Defamation Bill, and said that many in the legal profession shared his party's concerns. He proposed deleting the entire section dealing with the measure, and asked to know whether the current Minister for Justice, Jim O'Callaghan, plans to proceed with the bill as it is, as it had been prepared by his predecessor. Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon said that juries play an important role and "ensure fairness", especially where "powerful entities" are concerned. Abolishing them "would make Ireland an outlier", he said, and insisted that there is no evidence that jury trials are more costly. Independent TD Catherine Connolly asked if the Government is "intent on ramming this through", and called on Minister O'Callaghan to show "moral courage" in dropping the measure. "I wouldn't like to be sitting in your position now and having to eat my words," she said, and quoted remarks the minister had made during an earlier stage of the bill - and before his appointment as minister - where he said: "the decision to abolish juries in the High Court would be short-sighted". Sherlock warns that bill is 'now out of date' Labour's Marie Sherlock expressed "serious concerns with key elements of this bill", and warned that it is "now out of date". She said that legal fees in defamation cases are higher than in any other civil action, and said the bill should be used to change that practice. The Defamation Bill was published last year, and aims to reduce costs for those seeking to defend their good name, including in relation to anonymous online trolls. Currently, this can only be done in the High Court. The bill would also introduce protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or "SLAPPs", which are often taken against individual journalists and are widely seen as a threat to press freedom. Minister O'Callaghan defended the measures in the bill, and said he would be opposing the various amendments tabled this evening. He noted the remarks of his which Deputy Connolly had quoted, and said that since then, there has been a General Election, during which his party's manifesto had promised to enact the bill. He said that being in a political party requires compromise, unlike being an independent, and rejected the suggestion that the removal of juries was a moral matter. The minister said that he is "bound by the terms of the Programme for Government."
