Weaponising defamation laws

On February 9-10, 2026, Assam chief minister Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs.500 crore against Congress leaders Gaurav Gogoi, Jitendra Singh, Bhupesh Baghel, and Debabrata Saikia for alleged false claims of corruption and land misuse at a press conference. A Guwahati court issued an interim injunction on February 12 restraining these leaders from further comments until they appear in court. The suit was filed in response to a Congress press conference where leaders accused Sarma’s family of illegally acquiring nearly 12,000 bighas of land across Assam. Sarma’s prolific use of defamation suits against critics raises serious concerns about weaponizing law to muzzle dissent and shield alleged wrongdoings. Since becoming Chief Minister in 2021, Sarma’s pattern involves exorbitant damage claims-often Rs.100 crore or more-targeting politicians, journalists, and activists, creating a chilling effect on dissent. By pairing civil claims for eye-watering damages-like the recent Rs. 500 crore suit against Congress leaders Gaurav Gogoi (Assam Congress president), Jitendra Singh, and Bhupesh Baghel for alleging family land grabs via a press conference and website, Himanta’s intent is clear- ensure no one dares to hurl any allegation against him. Most suits demand astronomical sums to amplify financial pressure. Sarma routinely targets routine political jabs as “false and malicious,” even from press conferences alleging corruption or asset misuse. A Guwahati court recently gagged defendants and an Assamese daily via interim injunction until hearings, amplifying the chill. Past cases include criminal suits against AAP’s Manish Sisodia over PPE scam claims and Uttarakhand Congress voices. No exhaustive tally exists, but patterns suggest dozens since 2021, often both civil and criminal. Invoking criminal defamation for factual reporting or allegations-standard in opposition politics-risks jail time, financial ruin, and gag orders, fostering self-censorship. Critics argue even journalism on public interest issues invites Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) tactics, which violates Article 19(1)(a) free speech. SLAPP is a frivolous lawsuit filed by individuals or corporations to intimidate, silence, and financially drain critics by burdening them with legal defense costs Supreme Court has warned against such interim injunctions as “death sentences” to expression, urging caution. Sarma frames this as combating “hit-and-run politics”, but the asymmetry-opponents face existential threats while BJP rhetoric goes unchecked-erodes democracy. In Assam’s BJP stronghold, it ensures “no one dares criticize,” prioritizing image over accountability. Courts must scrutinize these as potential abuse, balancing reputation with public discourse. Sarma routinely invokes Section 499/500 IPC for criminal defamation alongside civil actions, even for routine political barbs. Critics argue this blurs lines between libel and protected speech on scams. Without strong procedural safeguards (early dismissal of frivolous suits, cost orders, anti SLAPP protections , the courts and citizens bear the burden of repeated, punitive litigation. Practically abuse of law discourages whistleblowing, burdens media (especially smaller outlets), and normalises legal harassment as a political tool. In the interest of rule of justice, robust political criticism is essential in a democracy. Using the criminal law or punitive damages to respond to routine political criticism shifts the balance from accountability to intimidation, weakens public scrutiny, and narrows the space for dissent and investigative reporting. Criminal defamation laws and overly large damage claims are easily weaponised. Ironically, the law is being used against justice and preventing this will require the courts to be clear and responsive to this challenge.