Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are becoming more recognized as a potent tool of legal harassment, as corporations, powerful people, and state officials are now using it to silence dissent and discourage legitimate public activism. SLAPPs can be characterized as a tool that is used to exert not only financial but also psychological pressures on activists, journalists, and civil society organizations, as opposed to being a legitimate legal complaint. This paper critiques the scenario of India of misusing of SLAPPs, where the lack of sufficient defamation laws, the lengthy legal process, and unequal access to justice further intensify their chilling effect on free speech and political participation. Comparative analysis of anti-SLAPP laws in various jurisdictions, such as the United States, Canada as well as the nations in Europe, and South Africa, clarifies the variety of legislative and judicial approaches that may be used to guard civic activity. The paper notes the existing legal gaps in India that enable the continuation of SLAPPs and suggests that an effective anti-SLAPP framework based on constitutional protections to free speech, judicial effectiveness, and protection of litigation in the public interest can be implemented. The suggested structure aims to reconcile the rights of individual reputation and the right to criticize as a collective entity to strengthen the democratic spirit of India.