DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

SUBJECT

CRIMINAL LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Dr. Nandini CP mam

PROJECT TITLE

LOSS OF CONTROL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER

INTOXICATION

TEAM

MAHAJAVEEN----- 2016058

T.L.SRAVAN-------- 2016054

C ANAND HITESH------- 2016027

D KIRAN KUMAR-------- 2016051

AMIT TIWARI ----------- 2016011

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMNT:-

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our lecturer Mrs. P. SRI DEVI Mam
whom have given me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic ' TORT
OF DEFAMATION’ , which also helped me in doing a lot of research and through which
WE came to know so many new things. we are really thankful to her.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MEANING OF DEFAMATION

2. LIBEL AND SLANDER

3. ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION
1) THE STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY
2) THE SAID STATEMENT MUST REFER TO THE PLAINTIFF
) THE STATEMENT MUST BE PUBLISHED

4. DEFENCES
1) JUSTIFICATION OR TRUTH
2) FAIR COMMENT

5. PRIVILEGE
1) ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE
a) Parliamentary proceedings
b) Judicial proceedings
2) QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE.

6. CASE LAWS

7. CONCLUSION.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

3
 TORT OF DEFAMATION

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH PROBLEM: TORT OF DEFAMATION

RESEARCH STUDY/ LITERATURE REVIEW:

Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. if a Person injures the

reputation of another, he Does his own risk , as in the case of an interference with the
Property. A man’s reputation in his property, and if possible More value then other
property.

RESEARCH DESIGN: The method of research is doctrinal study.

IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLE: Tort of defamation is independent variable and it is

depends on the defendant behaviour and skills.

HYPOTHESIS: Weather the cases of defamation are cleared as per the law are not.

TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS: How the judgments are passed by the judges regarding the
cases filed under defamation and the passed judgments is as per defamation act.

COLLECTION OF DATA: A researcher uses the secondary sources like books, journals
and also the web sources.

I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING REGARDING DEFAMATION:

a) Libel and Slander

b) Essentials of defamation
c) Defences
d) Privileges and
e) Court cases filed related to defamation and their judgments.

CLASSIFICATION OF DATA:

a) Introduction
b) Review of literature
c) Analysis of case laws
d) Conclusion.

4
 TORT OF DEFAMATION

INTRODUCTION:

Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a Person injures the

reputation of another, he Does his own risk , as in the case of an interference with the
Property. A man’s reputation in his property, and if possible More value than other property.1

REVIEW LITERATURE:

LIBEL AND SLANDER :

a)SLANDER :
IT is a defamatory statement made in a transient form, i.e
The defamation made in temporary form
EX: spoken by words, and gestures.
a) LIBEL :
It is the one of the type of defamation, which causes defamation in
permanent form.

EX : writing in newspaper , pictures and statute

AS per defamation act 1952 of sec-1 provides that broadcasting of words by means of
wireless telegraphy shall be treated as a publication in permanent form.

In a cinema hall taking of photography and piracy shooting is treated as a

libel. But also the speech which synchronises with it is also a libel.

CASE ANALYSIS:

YOUSSOUPOFF (VS)M.G.M.PICTURES L.T.D.2

This is the case about a film produced by an English company called metro Goldwyn
Mayer pictures limited. A lady princess Natasha was shown having a relation of seduction Or
rape with the man Rasputin of the worst character.

In this case justice SLESSER observed that there is no doubt that, so far as the
photographic part of the exhibition is concerned, that is a permanent matter to be seen by the
eye of every individual and this is the proper subject of an action for libel .

1
Dixon v. Holden ( 1869 ) 7 Eq. 488
2
( 1984 ) 50 T.L. R 581.

5
The difference to find out whether it is slander and libel was

SLANDER – it is addressed to the ear

LIBEL - it is addressed to the eye.

ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION :

The following are the essentials of defamation

a) The statement must be defamatory

b) The said statement must refer to the plaintiff
1) Defamation of a class of persons
2) Defamation of the deceased.
c) The statement must be published.

THE STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY :

Defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff.

Defamation is a statement which tends to decrease the reputation of a person in the society
generally, or which tends to make them avoid in the society. The defamatory statement can
be made in different ways. As we discussed earlier (i.e written, printing, picture, statute or by
some conduct. 3

CASE :

SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY CO. (VS) RAMAKRISHNA

The railway guard , who was an employee of the defendant ,( i.e. south Indian railway
comp) went to a carriage for checking the tickets and while calling upon the plaintiff to
produce his ticket ,said to him in the presence of other passenger “ I SUSPECT YOU ARE
TRAVELLING WITH A WRONG TICKET “ even though the plaintiff produced the ticket
which was in order . 4then the plaintiff sued on the railway company contending that those
words uttered by the railway guard amounted to defamation , it was held that the words
spoken by the guard was without intention to deceive the plaintiff, under the circumstances of
the case , there was no defamation and the railway company could not be liable

CAPITAL AND COUNTIES BANK (VS) HENTY & SONS

In this case there was the dispute between the defendant Henty &sons and one of the branch
manager of the plaintiff’s bank ( i.e capital and counties bank ) .The defendants who used to
3
Sim v. Stretch , ( 1936 ) 52 T.L.R. 669 , 671
4
I.L.R. (1980 ) 13 Mad .34

6
receive cheques drawn on various branches of capital and counties bank sent a circular notice
to their customers as follows “ this is to inform that HENTY AND SONS will not receive
payment in cheque drawn on any of the branches of the CAPITAL AND COUNTIES bank
“ , the circular become known to various other persons also and there was a run on the bank .
The bank sued on HENTY &SONS for LIBEL alleging that the circular notice issued by the
Henty & sons made their bank insolvency.

The words of the circular supposed imputation and the reasonable people would not
understand.so, the sense of INNUENDO was suggested, and thus therefore defendants are
not libel .

INNUENDO:

A statement may be prima facie (based on first impression, accepted as

correct until proved), defamatory and that is so when its natural and obvious meaning leads to
that conclusion. sometimes the prima facie statement be innocent but because of some latent
or secondary meaning ( based on facts & circumstances) , it may be considered to be
defamatory . when the natural and ordinary meaning is not defamatory but the plaintiff
wants to bring an action for defamation , he must prove the latent or the secondary meaning
i.e called as INNUENDO.5

CASSIDY(VS)DAILY MIRROR NEWS PAPER LTD.

MR. CASSIDY was married to a lady who called herself M/S.CASSIDY. She was a known
as the lawful wife of MR.CASSIDY who did not live with her but occasionally came and
stayed with her at her flat. The defendants published” in their newspaper along with
photograph of MR.CASSIDY the race horse owner and M/S. X , whose engagement has been
announced “. M/S. CASSIDY sued the defendants for libel alleging that the innuendo was
that MR.CASSIDY was not her husband and he lived with immoral cohabitation. Some
female aquittances of the plaintiff gave evidence that they had formed a bad opinion of her as
a result of the publication .The jury found that the words conveyed defamatory meaning and
the damages were awarded. The court of appeal held that the innuendo was established, and
the defendants are liable. 6

THE STATEMENT MUST REFER TO PLAINTIFF :

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he
complains referred to him. It is immaterial that defendant did not intend to defame the
plaintiff . if the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the
statement referred to the plaintiff , the defendant is never liable

NEWSTEAD (VS) LONDON EXPRESS NEWS PAPER LTD.7

5
James : General Principles of the Law of Torts , 2 nd ed.,
6
( 1929 ) 2 K.B. 331 .,
7
(1939 ) 4 All E.R 391

7
 The defendants published an article stating that “HAROLD NEWSTEAD, a Camberwell
barman” had been convicted for bigamy .the story was true of HAROLD NEWSTEAD, a
Camberwell barman. The action for defamation was brought by another HAROLD
NEWSTEAD, a Camberwell barber.as the words were considered to be understood as
referring to the plaintiff, the defendants were held liable.

It has been noted above that the liability for defamation did not depend
upon the intention of the defendant to Defame, but upon the fact that the statement made by
him was considered to be defamatory.

DEFAMATION OF A CLASS OF PERSONS :

When the words refer to a group of individual or a class of persons, no

member of that group or class can sue unless he can prove that the words could reasonably be
considered to be referring to him .

EX : “if a man wrote that all lawyers are thieves, no particular lawyer could sue
him unless there was something to point to the particular individual “

KNUPFFER (VS) LONDON EXPRESS NEWS PAPERS L.T.D

The plaintiff was a member of the party, the membership of which was about two thousand,
out of which twenty four members including the plaintiff were in England. The defendants
published a statement of the party as a whole .some of the plaintiff friends considered the
article referring to him.8 It was however held that since the article referred to such a big
class , most of the members of which were resident abroad , it could not be reasonably be
considered to be referring to the plaintiff and the defendants are not liable.

In this case lord ATKIN said that there can be no law that a defamatory statement
made of a firm, or trustee, or the tenants of a particular building is not actionable.

DHIRENDRA NATH SEN (VS) RAJAT KANTI BHADRA

It has been held that when an editorial column in the newspaper is defamatory of a spiritual
head of a community, an individual of that community does not have a right of action.9

A partnership firm is not a legal entity; the partners are collectively

known as firm. Defamation of partnership firm may, therefore, mean that defamation of
partners of that firm . no suit is maintainable by a firm as it is not a legal person, in this type
of cases suit must be bring by the individual partners.

P.K. OSWAL HOSIERY MILL (VS) TILAK CHAND

In this case Punjab high court explained that it is well known that firm is merely a
Artificial name was adopted by the partners and it is not itself a legal entity. 10Defamation of
a partnership firm may indeed amount to defamation of partners, the partners may sue and not
the firm. The remedy of an association like partnership concern really lies with the hands of
8
Ibid
9
A. I. R. 1970 Cal 216.
10
A. I. R . 1969 Punjab 1950

8
individual partners (members) who can personally sue if they have been defamed .it is not
necessary for all the members of the firm to join in such an action . Any one or more of the
partners who feel aggrieved may sue and the others may join as proforma defendants.

DEFAMATION OF THE DECEASED :

Defaming a deceased person is not a tort .under a criminal law, however it

may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation may
harm the reputation of that person, if living and it is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of
his family or other near relatives.11

THE STATEMENT MUST BE PUBLISHED :

Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person

other than the person defamed, unless this is done no civil action for defamation lies.
Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation is injury to the
reputation and it consists the estimation in which other holds him and not a man’s own
opinion of himself. Dictating a letter to one typist is enough publication. Sending a
defamatory letter to the plaintiff in the language understands by him is not referring to
defamation. If the third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, the defendant
is not liable. When a father opened his son’s letter or the clerk opened and read a sealed letter
meant for his employer in these two cases it is not refer to the publication by the defendant
and the defendant is not liable.

If a defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by

somebody else, there is a publication. When the defamatory matter contained in the postcard
or telegram, the defendant is liable without a proof that somebody else read it, and there is a
high probability of the post card being read by someone. 12If, however the matter contained in
the postcard could not be understood as defamatory by a stranger with certain circumstances
not mentioned in the post card, there was no publication to the postman or other persons
through whose hands the postcard has passed. Similarly the position would be same if the
matter is in a language which the addressee does not understand or he is too blind to read it or
he could not hear, being a deaf man.

When the letter addressed to the plaintiff is, in the ordinary course of
business , likely to be opened by his clerk or the spouse opens and read that letter and this
leads to publication when the defendant knew or ought to have known that the letter although
sent to the plaintiff will be read by some third person .

EX: the letter is written in a language which the plaintiff does not understand.

MAHENDRA RAM (VS) HARNANDAN PRASAD.13

In this case the defendant sent a defamatory letter written in Urdu to the plaintiff. the
plaintiff did not know the Urdu and the same was read over to him by a third person .it was
held that defendant is not liable unless it was prove that at the time of writing the letter in
11
Sec 499 I.P.C
12
Pull man v Hill
13
A.I.R. 1958

9
Urdu script the defendant knew that the Urdu script was not known to the plaintiff and it
would be a necessitate reading of the letter by a third person.

ARUMUGA MUDALIAR (VS) ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR.14

It was held by the madras high court that when two persons jointly wrote a letter containing
defamatory matter concerning the plaintiff and sent the same by the register post to the
plaintiff there was no publication between the one tortfeasor to the other as there could be no
publication between the joint tortfeasors, there be said to be publication when the register
letter addressed to the plaintiff gets into the hands of third person and he reads it out in the
presence of various other persons

INJUNCTION AGAINST PUBLICATION OF A DEFAMATORY STATEMENT : 15

It has been held by the madras high court that if a statement regarding the validity of
marriage of a person is uncalled for under the circumstances of the case and is likely to cause
injure to the reputation of a person , the person making such statement can be restrained from
doing so.

PRAMEELA RAVINDRAN (VS) P.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA.

In this case the plaintiff filed an application requesting for an order to restrain the
defendant from making a defamatory statement about the plaintiff.

The marriage between the plaintiff (prameela ravindran) and the deceased was disputed
by the defendant (p.lakshmikutty amma) who was the mother of the deceased. The plaintiff
contended that she was the wife of the deceased Ravindran. She produced a marriage
certificate dated 10-11-1984.issued by the temple authorities showing the fact of marriage
between prameela and ravindran. A part from that she produced an agreement of marriage
between the parties and also the L.I.C. policy and passport, where the plaintiff has been
described as ravindran’s wife. Thus, the prima facie evidence and balance of convenience
were in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant, who disputed the marriage, had been sending letters to various persons
relating to the marital status of the plaintiff. Such letters were held to be defamatory and the
respondent was restrained from making statements and sending letters of the kind she had
been doing.

REPETITION OF DEFAMATORY MATTER:

The liability of the person who repeats a defamatory matter arises in the
same way as of originator, because every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise to a
fresh cause of action. Not only the author of the defamatory matter is liable but it’s editor,
publisher would also be liable in the same way. Their liability is strict.

14
1966 2 M.L.J.223
15
A.I.R 2001 Mad 225.

10
 There is another class of persons who might disseminate the matter
without knowing it’s contents.

EX: booksellers, newspaper vendors, and librarians these people are not liable if they
did not know (or) in spite of reasonable diligence could not have known that they were
circulating was defamatory.

EMMENS (VS) POTTLE.

In this case the defendants who were large scale news vendors sold copies of publication
containing libellous matter concerning the plaintiff. It was found that they neither new nor
were negligent is not knowing the matter and hence there was no publication on their part,
hence they were not liable.

INDEMNITY FROM THE SUPPLIER OF WRONG INFORMATION:

GURBACHAN SINGH (VS) BABU RAM.16

In this case it was held that if a person supplied wrong information and the editor
convicted the same in publishing , the editor cannot claim indemnity from the supplier of the
information unless there was a contract of that effect because the editor does not have a legal
right to get only the correct news. It was observed that it was the duty of an editor of a
newspaper to check up the news (Or) information that is supplied to him, before publishing
the same in his newspaper, especially when the news might be of a defamatory in nature,
because ultimately the editor who would be held responsible for publishing any defamatory
material in his paper. If he does not do that, he has to suffer the consequences for his neglect .

DEFENCES FOR DEFAMATION :

The following are the defences to an action for defamation.

a) Justification (or) truth

b) Fair comment.

JUSTIFICATION (OR) TRUTH:

In an action for defamation, truth of defamatory matter is complete

defence. Under criminal law merely proving that the statement was true is no defence, where
as civil law merely proving the statement was true as good defence.

The reason for this defence is that “ the law will not permit a man to recover
damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not or ought not to
possess. This defence is available even though the publication is made maliciously.

This defence is still available even though if the statement is substantially

true but incorrect in respect of certain minor particulars.

16
A.I.R. 1969 Punjab 201

11
 ALEXANDER (VS) NORTH EASTERN RAILWAYCOMPANY.17

In this case the plaintiff had sentenced to a fine of 1pound (or) 14 days imprisonment in the
alternative ,for travelling on a train with appropriate ticket . the defendants published a notice
stating that the plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine of 1 pound (or) 3 weeks imprisonment in
the alternative . the defendants are not liable , because the published statement is being
substantially accurate.

If the defendants is not able to prove the truth of the facts , this defence cannot
be availed .

RADHESYAMTIWARI (VS) EKNATH.18

In this case the defendant who was an editor, printer, and publisher of a news paper had
published a series of news articles against the plaintiff , a block development officer, alleging
that the plaintiff had issued a false certificates , accepted bribe and adopted corrupt and illegal
means in various matters. In an action for defamation, the defendants could not prove that the
facts published by him were true and therefore the defendants are liable.

FAIR COMMENT :

Making fair comment on matters of public interest is a defence to an action for

defamation .To avail this defence the following essentials are to be avail.

a) It must be a comment .( expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact).

b) The comment must be fair.
c) The matter commented upon must be of public interest.

COMMENT:

Comment means expression of opinion on certain facts. It should be

distinguished from statement of facts. A fair comment is a defence by itself where as
statement of fact that can be excused only if justification (or) privilege is proved regarding
that. Whether the statement is a fact (or) comment is based on the language used (or) the
context in which that is stated.19

17
1885 6 B & S. 340
18
A.I.R 1985 Bom 285
19
Illustration ( d) to sixth Exception to sec 499 I.P.C

12
 EX:

‘A’ says of a book published by ‘Z’ that

“Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man; Z’s book is indecent;

Z must be a man of impure mind”. These are only comments based on Z’s book and A will be
protected if he has said that in good faith.

If ‘A’ says -------------- “ I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and
indecent, foe he is a week man. IT IS NOT A COMMENT on Z’s book, it is a statement of
fact and the defence of fair comment cannot be pleaded in this case.

It is necessary that the comment must be related to certain facts, it is also

essential that the facts commented upon must be either known to the audience addressed or
the commentator should make it known along with the comment.

EX:

X says that “A has been guilty of breach of trust and, therefore he is a dishonest
man”. The last words are comment on the former.

If ‘X’ says---------------------------“A is a dishonest man” it is not a comment but it is

a statement of fact, the defence of fair comment cannot be pleaded in the case of statement of
facts.

THE COMMENT MUST BE FAIR:

The comment must be fair when the facts are substantially true and justify the
comments which are truly stated, the defence of fair comment can be taken even though some
of the facts stated may not be proved.

The comment cannot be fair when it is based upon untrue facts. A comment
based upon invented and untrue facts is not fair. 20

If due to malice on the part of the defendant, the comment is distorted one, his
comment ceases to be fair and he cannot take such as defence.

GREGORY (VS) DUKE OF BRUNSWICK

In this case the plaintiff, an actor appeared on the stage of a theatre but the defendant
and other persons disturbed the plaintiff maliciously and there by caused him to loose
engagement. Disturbance (hissed and hooting) made by the defendants and other persons was
held to be actionable and that was not a fair comment on the plaintiff’s performance.

THE MATTER COMMENTED UPON MUST BE OF PUBLIC INTEREST:

20
See R.K. Karanzia v Thackersey

13
 Administration of government departments, public companies, courts, conduct
of public men like ministers (or) officers of state, public institutions and local authorities,
etc…………… are considered to be the matters of public interest.

PRIVILIGES:

There are certain occasions when the law recognises that the right of free speech
overcome the plaintiff’s right to reputation, then the law treats such occasion to be
“privileged” and a defamatory statement made on such occasions is not actionable. Privilege
is of two types

a) Absolute privilege
b) Qualified privilege.

ABSOLUTE PRIVILIGE:

In absolute privilege, no action lies for defamatory statement even

though the statement is false or has been made maliciously. In such cases, the public interest
demands that an individual’s right to reputation should give way to freedom of speech.
Absolute privilege is recognised in the following cases.

a) Parliamentary proceedings
b) Judicial proceedings
c) State communications.

PARLIMENTARY PROCEEDINGS:

AS per ARTICLE- 105(2) of our constitution provides that

a) Statement made by a member of either house of parliament in parliament,

b) The publication by or under the authority of either house of the parliament of any report,
paper, votes, (or) proceedings, cannot be questioned in the court of law. A similar
privilege exists in respect of state legislatures, as per article 194(2).

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:

No action for libel or slander lies, weather against judges, counsels, witnesses, or
parties for words written or spoken in the course of any proceedings before any court
recognised by law, even though the words written or spoken maliciously, without any
justification or excuse and from personal ill or will and anger against the person defamed.
Such privilege also extends to proceedings of the tribunal possessing similar attributes.

JIWAN MAL (VS) LACHHMAN DAS.

In this case on the suggestion of a compromise in a petty suit by a trail court,

Lachhman das, a witness in the case remarked, “A compromise cannot be effected as jiwan
mal stands in the way. He looted the whole dinanagar and gets false cases set up”. Jiwan

14
 mal about whom the said remark was made, was a municipal commissioner of Dinanagar
but he had nothing to do with the suit. In an action against Lachhman das for slander, the
defence pleaded that there was absolute privilege as the statement was made before the
court of law. the high court considered the remark for defendant to be wholly irrelevant to
the matter under enquiry and uncalled for, it rejected the defence of privilege and held the
defendant liable.

A statement made to a police officer which the complaint, if so

required, is willing to substantiate upon the oath is also absolutely privilege. All the
statements made by potential witness as a preliminary to going into a witness box are
equally privileged with the statements made actually in the box in the court.

21
T.G.NAIR (VS)MELEPURATH SANKUNNI.

In this case the question arouse whether a petition to executive magistrate for
stating judicial proceedings under section107, of cr. p.c for the maintenance of peace and
also simultaneously forwarding a copy there of to sub-inspector of police, for taking
executive action came with in the purview of the defence of absolute privilege.

In this case the defendant filed a petition in the court of executive magistrate, first
class alleging that the plaintiff and his brother were two notorious bad characters and they
are blackmailing and criminal breach of trust and they are making efforts to encroach upon
his property with the help of some other bad characters. He requested in the petition for an
action to maintain peace. At the same time the executive magistrate of first class was not in
the station. So, the defendant submitted a copy of his petition before the sub-inspector of
police. The sub-inspector took an undertaking from the plaintiff that he would not take the
law in his own hands. Subsequently, the executive magistrate on the basis of police report
dropped the proceedings. Then the plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation, which was
said to be there in the form of above stated petition, and the publication to sub-inspector of
police. It was held that not only the judicial proceedings but also the necessary steps in that
process were absolutely privileged. Thus the statement made by the defendant in the
petition he presented to the magistrate and in copy there of which he presented to the sub-
inspector of police are both absolutely privileged. Since the plaintiff action for defamation,
therefore, failed.

STATE COMMUNICATIONS:

A statement made by one officer of state to another in the course of

official duty is absolutely privileged for reasons of public policy. Such privilege also
extends to reports made in course of military and naval duties. Communications relating to
state matters made by one minister to another or by a minister to the crown is also
absolutely privileged.

QUALIFIED PREVILEGE:
21
A.I.R 1971 Kerala 280

15
 In certain cases, the defence of qualified privilege is also available. Unlike the
defence of absolute privilege, in this case it is necessary that the statement must be made
without malice. To avail this defence it is necessary that there must be an occasion for
making the statement. Generally this privilege is available when the statement is made in
discharge of duty, protection of an interest and the publication is in the form of report of
parliamentary, judicial, or other public proceedings. Thus to avail this defence the
defendant has to prove the following two points.

a) The statement was made on a privileged occasion, ie,

1) It was in discharge of duty or protection of an interest; (or)
2) it is a fair report of parliamentary, judicial, (or) other public
proceedings.
b) The statement was made without malice.

STATEMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN DISCHARGE OF A DUTY (OR)

PROTECTION OF AN INTEREST:

The occasion when there is a qualified privilege to make defamatory statement

without malice are either when there is existence of a legal duty, social duty, (or) moral duty
to make such a statement (or) existence of some interest for the protection of which the
statement is made.

In this privilege “occasion” refers to…………..where the person who makes a

communication has an interest of legal duty, moral duty and social duty to make it to the
person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has corresponding interest or
duty to receive it. Involvement of both persons is necessary.

As per section- 499 of I.P.C. also contains such a privilege in it’s ninth exception,
which provides:

“it is not a defamation to make an imputation on the character of another,

provided that the imputation must be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of
the person making it, or for any other person, or for public good.

EX:

A’ a magistrate in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation

(words or actions and ties them to a person or cause) on the character ‘Z’. Here if the
imputation is made in good faith and for public good, A is within the exception.

In case of publication of libellous matter in newspaper, duty to public has got

to be proved. If such duty is not proved, the plea of qualified privilege will fail. The plea will
also fail if the plaintiff proves the presence of malice or evil motive in the publication of
defamatory matter.

R.K. KARANJIA (VS) THACKERSEY. 22

22
A.I.R. 1970 Bom 424

16
 In this case an article was published in Blitz, English weekly, making attack directed
against the “House of thackersey” a business organisation, which constituted plaintiff as its
head, his brothers, and their wives and some of the plaintiffs close friends and relations. The
aim of the article was to suggest as to how the plaintiff, who was also the chairman of the
textile control board, had exploited his question in amassing enormous wealth by involving a
tax evasion on large amount, and by obtaining licences for import-export rackets in form fake
firms, factories and custom and foreign exchange violations.

The plaintiff brought an action against R.K.KARANJIA, the editor of the Blitz
weekly, the owners of the newspaper, its printers and the person who furnished the material
for the said article. The printer tendered an apology and the plaintiff withdrew the suit against
him. At the trail court, the defence of justification of fair truth, fair comment, on a matter of
public interest and the qualified privilege was pleaded. All those defences are rejected.
Holding that the plaintiff was grossly defamed, it passed a decree for the full claim of
R.S. 300000/- with costs and also issued an injunction forbidding the publication of a series
of similar articles intended to be published.

Against the decision the defendants preferred an appeal to high court. The only
defence pleaded before the high court was ‘Qualified privilege’, the element of “duty” in
communicating the statement was missing. It was held that mere fact that the matter of
general public interest is not enough. Another reason for rejecting the defence the qualified
privilege was that the article was published maliciously, not with an idea to serve public
interest but with a view to expose the plaintiff because on an earlier occasion, the plaintiff has
made the defendant editor to apologise for publishing a defamatory article. The high court
however allowed the appeal in part it reduced the amount of compensation from R.S.
300000/- to R.S. 150000/-.

REPORT OF PARLIMENTARY, JUDICIAL (OR) OTHER PUBLIC

PROCEEDINGS:

It has already been noted above that the reports of parliamentary proceedings published by or
under the authority of either house of parliament are subject to absolute privilege. If, however
the proceedings are published without the authority of the house, qualified privilege can be
claimed, provided the publication must be made without malice and for public good. A part
from the publication of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and the proceedings of public
meetings enjoy qualified privilege. The privilege does not extend to the report of court
proceedings which are not of public interest or to the proceedings to which the public is not
admitted. Thus to claim qualified privilege in respect of parliamentary proceedings the
publication should be without malice, and for public good.

THE STATEMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITH OUT MALICE:

17
In this privilege exemption is granted from liability only if the statement was made without
malice. If it proved that said statement was done with malicious intention then this defence
should be lapsed. In relation to a qualified privilege means an evil motion. 23

CONCLUSION:

From the given project I can understand that plaintiff can file a case regarding defamation
only when the defendant publishing the same matter to all i.e he has to publish to the public
how he defame the plaintiff weather directly or indirectly. The plaintiff has to prove that
defendant defamed him either in the form of libel or slander, and there were some defences
also available to the defendant in case if he published the fair comment regarding the plaintiff
and also some privileges available regarding when the defamatory words spoken before the
court of law.

23
1877 2 QBD 237.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. R. K. BHANGIA – LAW OF TORTS

2. WINFILED - LAW OF TORTS

3. www. IndianKanoon .com

19