Beyond Judicial Innovation: Need To Codify Protection Against Abusive Proceedings Against Public Participation In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 29
- 2 min read
Deepti Panda, Founder & Principal Associate of the Litigation & Arbitration Chamber of Deepti Panda, Mumbai, India and a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Canada.
ABSTRACT
Abusive Proceedings against Public Participation (“APPP”), commonly referred to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), constitute a systematic misuse of legal processes to suppress democratic speech and civic engagement. Although framed as legitimate claims for the protection of rights, these proceedings are not designed to secure justice but to intimidate critics, silence dissent, and deter public participation on matters of public interest. Typically initiated by powerful actors—including corporations, political elites, and the State—APPPs rely on high-value claims, parallel proceedings, and protracted litigation to impose financial, reputational, and psychological burdens on journalists, activists, scholars, and citizens. Their cumulative effect is deeply corrosive, undermining constitutional guarantees of free speech and weakening democratic governance.
Recognizing these harms, several jurisdictions have enacted anti-SLAPP or anti-APPP legislation to recalibrate the balance between access to justice and the protection of public participation. Such frameworks exist across multiple states in the United States, select Canadian provinces, parts of Southeast Asia, and the European Union, though their scope and procedural design vary considerably.
India, however, lacks a dedicated anti-APPP statute. While the Supreme Court of India and certain High Courts have, in limited cases, acknowledged the abusive nature of such proceedings and refused relief that would chill free expression, judicial responses remain fragmented, inconsistent, and dependent on individual discretion. In the absence of legislative recognition, the burden of countering APPPs rests almost entirely on the judiciary.
In this backdrop, this paper critically examines Indian judicial engagement with APPPs alongside comparative legislative developments and argues for comprehensive statutory codification in India. Drawing on international best practices, it identifies core design principles necessary to safeguard public participation, strengthen democratic accountability, and protect freedom of expression.
