Defamation laws being in breach of fundamental rights protected by Article 19 of the constitution has sparked debates. The criminal defamation laws are constitutionally valid, according to the Supreme Court, and do not clash with the right to free speech. The court ruled that the right to free speech and expression is not unrestricted and is instead "absolutely sacrosanct." According to Article 21, a person's right to reputation is likewise protected, and their right to free expression cannot be used against them.
Defamation suits have been brought before Indian courts in a variety of landmark judgments. The following are some famous cases that have fascinating details or significant court decisions-


• D.P.Choudhary v/s. Manjulatha- The plaintiff, a 17-year-old college student, was reported to have left the residence with a male after claiming to have lectures in the local newspaper Dainik Navjyothi. She suffered consequences and her chances of getting married were destroyed by this bogus news story. It was actionable in and of itself, and she was given general damages in the amount of Rs. 100000.
• Mahendra Ram Vs. Harnandan Prasad- The plaintiff received a letter written in the Urdu language. He needed someone else to read it to him as a result. It was decided that the defendant's actions amounted to defamation because he was aware that the plaintiff does not speak Urdu and needs assistance.
• Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramanian Swamy- The court sentenced Dr. Swamy for defaming Ram Jethmalani by alleging that he accepted funds from a prohibited organization to shield the then-chief minister of Tamil Nadu from the Rajiv Gandhi assassination investigation.
• Arun Jaitley v. Arvind Kejriwal- The court ruled that statements made by Arvind Kejriwal and his five other leaders were defamatory in this case. After all of the defendants expressed regret for their behaviour, the situation was resolved.
• Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai- The plaintiff, a widow of 45 years, was accused of being the keep of the plaintiff's daughter-in-maternal law's uncle. The court determined that, in addition to being obscene abuse, the statement implied an attack on the woman's virginity, making it defamatory.
• Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh- The Supreme Court clarified what "reasonable limits" under Article 19 meant (2). In the public's best interests, it suggests thoughtful consideration and care.
• T.V.Ramasubha Iyer Vs. A.M.A.Mohideen- Without intending to malign the defendants, the statement that was published by the defendants. It was about a specific person who was arrested for smuggling after conducting business from Agarbathis to Ceylon. Since the plaintiff also operated a comparable business, the court granted him damages for the harm to his reputation.