SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are injurious suits used to chill free discourse and sound discussion by focusing on the individuals/groups who speak with their government or stand up on issues of public interest. SLAPPs are utilized to silence and bother critics by compelling them to go through their resources to protect themselves from these unjustifiable suits. SLAPP filers don't go to court to win but plan to scare the individuals who can't help contradicting them or their exercises by depleting the critic's financial assets. SLAPPs are so powerful that even a meritless claim can take years and thousands of dollars to contest. To end or anticipate a SLAPP, the individuals who stand up on issues of public interest consent to either gag themselves, apologize, and/or "correct" statements.

SLAPPs usually have three defining features:

1. The plaintiff/complainant usually has an unfair advantage as they have access to a lot of resources, both political and financial,  helping them sustain the litigation for longer periods. 
2. The objective is usually to intimidate a target of theirs into silence by legal action or by the threat of it. The target may bow down due to them not having the resources to contest the suit or force them to waste their resources fighting the suit.
3. They're constantly described by a shaky, pointless or even non-existent cause of action. They will have done their harm regardless of the outcome of the suit. The question of legal legitimacy, and in these cases, its absence is truly not one of any importance to the plaintiffs.

While the Activist v. Corporation routine is a drained one by now, the frequency of SLAPP procedures, both civil and criminal, against commentators and scholars are on the rise.

For example, the case of Shri Ajay Shah v. Multi Commodity Exchange Of India is a landmark case where the plaintiff asks for the quashing of a SLAPP suit filed against him for writing an article implying that the MCX took advantage of weak regulations by the Forward Market Commission. Another example is the case of Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Shamnad Basheer. In this case, a professor at NUJS was sued in the High Court of Delhi for an article he had written on products sold by the plaintiff even though the Court had no jurisdiction over this matter. 

Suits like these not only waste the resources of those who speak up but also discourage others from speaking up and scare them into silence. This is a very chilling effect and could undermine a person’s right to expression, which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The intent behind the first SLAPP suits was always related to the erosion of the freedom of speech and the right to petition. In the words of New York Supreme Court judge Nicholas Colabella J, SLAPP suits were described as: 

“Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to first amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.”

A final point about this pattern, particularly as it relates to hushing academic commentary, is that it is a dangerous one, and one against which we should all speak out. These cases, wherein the challenged content offers researched comment against the forces that be, will be a decent acid test for the quality of our discourse insurances as they fall squarely inside the class of discourse which constitutional protections try to maximize and disinhibit. It ought to be the exceptionally least that Article 19(1)(a) guarantees.