DEFAMATION

In general, defamation refers to damaging another's reputation by publishing false

information about him, which tends to give false impression of the same person in front of
others. Since ancient times it can be seen that, next to life, reputation is considered of utmost
importance, sometimes even prior to life. Thus, the law gives protection to a man's
reputation, in the same manner as it gives protection to his life and property. The Indian Penal
Code also contains certain provisions protecting the reputation of a person. Section 124A of
the IPC covers defamation against state and section 153 of the IPC contains defamation
against class or community. Chapter XXI i.e., sections 499-502 of the IPC deals with
defamation of a person1.

Section 499

Section 499 of the IPC defines defamation. According to it, “Whoever, by words either
spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”2

Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to
the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2 -It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or

an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3 -An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may,

amount to defamation.

Explanation 4 -No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of
that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or
lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 500

1
. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th Edition, 2014)696
2
. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499
Section 500 of the IPC deals with the punishment of defamation. It says, “Whoever defames
another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.”3

Section 501- Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory

Section 501of the IPC says that, “Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having
good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”4

Section 502- Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter

According to Section 502 of the IPC, “Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or
engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.”5

Essentials for an Offence to be Defamation

In order for an offence to be defamation, these three conditions are essential. The three
conditions are as follows: -

(1) There should be making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person;

(2) The means of such imputation should be either in words, writing, signs or visible
representations;

(3) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming the reputation of the
person about whom the imputation is being published.

What is meant by Reputation?

In general terms, reputation means the opinion of others about him in a society. Living in a
society, what others think of him, that is what called reputation of that particular person.
People work hard all their lives in order to have a good opinion of himself in the mind of
others, and law protects the same. Explanation 4 of the section 499 of IPC deals with this
aspect.

What is meant by Publication?

3
. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 500
4
. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 501
5
. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 502
Publication basically means the act or process of producing a work and selling it to the
public. It is one of the most essential ingredients in defamation. However, in case of
defamation, if A writes a derogatory letter about B, with the intention to injure his reputation
to C, then it would amount to publication and A would be liable for defamation both under
Civil and Criminal charges.

It will be considered libel if the defamatory statement is in permanent form, however if the
defamation is done through insignificant words or gestures then, it would amount to slander.

Difference between Indian Law and English Law

In English criminal law, the basis of liability is the breach of peace and mischief to society.
However, in civil law i.e., torts, liability arises from publication, even if the communication
happens with only one person other than the person defamed. The gist of the offence in
English criminal law is whether the words written by the defendant have a tendency to
provoke the breach of the peace, which means that in English law defamation will be
considered for criminal prosecutions only when the defamation leads to the person who was
defamed to disturb the peace of society, being provoked by the offence. This principle
however, which is not accepted as the basic principle of English penal law of defamation, is
accepted as the basic principle of penal liability in the IPC under section 499, explanation 4.
The gist of the offence in section 499, IPC, seems to lie in the tendency of the statements,
verbal or written, to create that degree of pain, which is felt by a person, who is subjected to
unfavourable criticisms and comments.

Another important difference between English law and Indian law in the matter relating to
spoken defamation or slander. Slander cannot be the subject matter of criminal prosecution in
England, except when it happens to be seditious or blasphemous. Slanderous words are never
actionable criminally, except when they happen to be utterances against the state or state
religion. The IPC recognises no such distinction classifying both as punishable.

Forms of Publication

 Direct Communication to the Defamed

Direct communication of the defamatory statements to the defamed does not amount to
publication in IPC. It was held by a majority of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court
in Taki Hussain6 case. The accused sent a suit notice to a policeman, claiming damages for
6
. Queen-Empress v Taki Husain (1884) ILR 7 All 205
an unjustifiable search of his house made by the latter, attributing malice and bribery to him.
At the insistence of the policeman, a prosecution was launched against the accused for
sending this suit notice which contained highly defamatory passages about the policeman
saying that he received bribes, etc. The majority of the Full Bench held that, “there was no
publication as contemplated under the section, as there was no communication to a third
person other than the defamed.” A similar judicial dictum can be traced in Sukdeo Vithal
Pansare v. Prabhakar Sukdeo Pansare 7, wherein the Bombay High Court ruled that,
“making a defamatory statement and communicating it to a person other than the person
concerning whom it is written is said to be publication.”

However, when it is known by the accused that his communication will be read by others
then he will be held liable. Thus, in the case of Sukhdeo8, where the accused had, in his reply
to the President of a Municipality, made a defamatory imputation and in due course of
business, President laid the reply before the Councillors, the accused was held guilty of
publication of defamatory matter under this section. However, it was held that, “a letter
containing defamatory imputations dictated by a lawyer to his stenographer who transcribed
it and then sent it to the concerned person does not amount to publication even though a third
person comes to know the defamatory matter”, because it comes under lawyer’s professional
range. Defamatory statements written on a post-card or printed on papers distributed
broadcast constitutes publication but, defamatory matter sent through post does not amount to
publication.

 Publication by Repetition

The term 'publication' includes repetition or republication of a libel which is already

published. So, if a newspaper prints a libellous article taken from another, and makes the
article its own, it will be held liable to all the consequences resulting from the publication of
the same. At most, the fact that the article was merely a reprint would help to reduce or
mitigate the sentence or damages awarded. In Decrespigny v. Wellesley9 CJ said: “Because
one man does an unlawful act to any person, another is not to be permitted to do a similar act
to the same person. Wrong is not to be justified or even excused by wrong”.

7
. Sukdeo Vithal Pansare v Prabhakar Sukdeo Pansare (1974) Cr LJ 1435 (Bom)
8
. Ibid.
9
. Decrespigny v Wellesley 5 Bing 404
The principle above has been followed by the high courts in India too. In the decision of
Howard10, where the accused had republished an extract of a defamatory article from another
paper, he was held liable. It was said that, “the fact that another journal had also published the
same matter could not be a defence for escaping liability.” The IPC does not make any
exception in favour of a second or third publication as compared with the first. The Publisher
has to take utmost care to scrutinise it even he reproduces a defamatory matter which is
already published in another newspaper.

Means of Publication

Publication can be in four forms. They are as follows: -

(1) Words Spoken

(2) Written

(3) Signs

(4) Visible Representations. The words 'visible representation' will include every possible
form of defamation, which human ingenuity can devise. A statue, a caricature, an effigy,
chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures may constitute a libel.

 Printed Matters: Liability of Editor and Others

In the eyes of law, the editor, printer, publisher and even the distributor is liable for the
printing or publishing of any defamatory matter. The Publisher cannot contend that he was
not aware of the defamatory article published in the article.

In the case of Balasubramanai Mudaliar v. Rajagoplachariar11, the Madras High Court held
that, “the editor of a journal is in no better position than an ordinary subject with regard to his
liability for libel”. The editor is bound to take proper caution and care before making any
libellous statement. However, in a previous judgement of Madras High Court in the case of
Ramaswamy v. Lok Ananda12, it was held that, an editor would not be held liable if he
succeeds in proving that the libel was published in his absence and without his knowledge
and he had in good faith entrusted his work of the paper during his absence to a competent
person.

Imputations Concerning 'Any Person'

10
. (1887) ILR 12 Bom 167
11
. Balasubramanai Mudaliar v. Rajagoplachariar 1944 MWN 322
12
. Ramaswamy v. Lok Ananda (1886) 9 ILR Mad 387
The word 'imputation' shows something terrible about another and infers the attribution of
fiendish, the making of an allegation, charge, intimation or a charge against an individual. In
the civil law of defamation, the intention of the person making the imputation is immaterial,
however in section 499 of the IPC, the imputation made by any person must at least be
believed to harm the reputation of such person. In other words, a random statement about
someone without any intention to injure the reputation, does not amount to defamation under
IPC. The element of malice or legal malice is very important for civil law, but the same
cannot be said for criminal law. It can be seen in the case of, in the case of Palani Asari13,
wherein the accused gave out that the complainant should be outcast for having had
intercourse with a pariah woman, the magistrate acquitted him on the ground, that, as there
was no ill intent present, the matter can only be considered as bona fide. However, the high
court reversed the order and held that where the words were prima facie defamatory, malice
may be presumed, unless a case of privilege is made out.

Intention To Injure

Section 499 of the IPC states that, the person who defames another must have done it ‘with
the intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm
the reputation'. Intention to cause harm to reputation of a person is sine qua non of the
offence of defamation, which means intention to injure is absolutely necessary for an offense
to be defamation.

In any case, defamatory words that only tend to harm an individual in his trade or profession
are not sufficient conditions to bring an action of defamation. Such words, in spite of the fact
is likely to harm him in his commerce, does not reflect either on his private or in his trade
character or reputation. It is, in this manner, not defamatory to write and print about a trade’s
man that he has ceased to carry on his trade, or that his commerce has been, or is almost to be
procured by another firm.

It can be seen that words of common abuse do not amount to defamation. In the case of Amir
Hassan14. The accused was a pleader for the defendant in the case of Ram Ghulam v.
Mendailal, then being heard before a munsiff and during the course of his argument while
speaking of the status of the parties said. 'Why, who was Ram Ghulam's father? He died
when he was scraping grass'. At this, Ram Ghulam put his head through a small door in the
munsiff's court and said: 'What does Amir Hasan know of pleading? Up to yesterday, he and
13
. (1882) 1 Weir 613
14
. 1883 AWN 167.
his father were peddlers and hawked about small wares through the streets'. These
expressions gave rise to mutual prosecutions and convictions, but the presiding Judge
quashed the convictions, on the ground that the words were 'no more than vulgar abuses,
which did not amount to defamation'.

ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 499 AND 500

Explanation 1: Defamation of The Dead

As stated by this explanation, the imputation must not only be defamatory to the deceased,
but it also should be hurtful to the feelings of the close relatives. The issue depends upon the
harm caused and not the harm intended, the latter test is inapplicable in case of deceased.

Explanation 2: Defamation of A Company or A Collection of Persons

An organization or company cannot be defamed in regard of a charge of a murder, complaint

of incest or infidelity, since it cannot commit those violations. The words complained of must
aim to attack the enterprise or company within the strategy of conducting its undertakings;
must charge it of extortion or fumble; or must attack its money related position.

 Scope of Explanation 2- The Class or Community Must Be Clearly Identifiable

The scope of explanation 2 of section 499 of the IPC was examined by the Supreme Court in
the case of G Narasimham v. TV Chokkappa15. The given case concerned a private
complaint case under sections 500 and 501, IPC, filed by the respondent as Chairman of the
Reception Committee of the Dravida Kazhakam (DK) against the editors and publishers of
three newspapers from Madras namely The Hindu, Indian Express and Dinamani. The issue
was regarding a news item, which was published by all three newspapers about a certain
resolution passed in a conference of the DK held on 23 and 24 January 1971. It was the
dispute of the complainant that the resolution passed was: 'It should not be made an offence
for a person's wife to desire another man'.

However, it is reported that a resolution was passed at the conference calling on the
government to "take appropriate steps to ensure that coveting another man's wife does not
constitute an offense under the Indian Penal Code”16. According to the complainant, this form
of reporting is misleading, untruthful and highly defamatory, and tarnishes the image of the
conference. The Supreme Court reviewed Interpretation 2, Section 499, and stated that “a
15
. G Narasimham v. TV Chokkappa AIR 1972 SC 2609
16
. Ibid.
defamation allegation against a company or group of people falls within the definition of
defamation. The language of this section is very broad, covering not only a company or
association but also anybody. However, the court ruled: "Such a group of individuals must be
an identifiable body in order to be able to say with certainty that a particular group of people,
distinct from the rest of the community, has been smeared. Therefore, where interpretation
(2) is invoked, the identity of the company or association or group of people must be
established in such a way that it can relate to defamatory remarks or implication. Where a
text is against humanity in general, or against the specific order of men, for example men in
robes, it is not defamation. It has to come down to the details and the staff to make it libel. "17

The key question is whether the conference, other than the party, in particular Dravida
Kazhakam, is a defined and identifiable body for defamatory language to be used in
connection with the resolution being adopted. The court held that, “It is impossible to have a
definite idea as to its composition, the number of persons who attended, the ideas and
ideologies to which they subscribed, and whether all of them positively agreed to the
resolution in question. The evidence was that the person presiding read out the resolution, and
as no one got up to oppose it, it was taken as approved by all. The Conference clearly was not
an identifiable or a definitive body so that all those who attended it could be said to be its
constituents who, if the conference was defamed, would in turn, be said to be defamed.”

On the basis of the foregoing, the Supreme Court quashed the preliminary ruling proceedings
of the judge. It is a stable rule that the words or implications that are the subject of a
defamation complaint must refer to the specific person (s) whose identity can be established.
If such statements do not indicate any taxation against one or more individuals in particular,
but also apply to others although belonging to the same class, it does not mean defamation.
Defamation of an unidentified class is not covered by the second interpretation of article 499
of the ICC.

 Distinct Character of Body Allegedly Defamed Essential

The category referred to should not be too large to be different from members of a
particular industry or profession (such as law or medicine). Therefore, if a person regards
lawyers as a class, saying that they are thieves, or doctors as murderers in disguise, or the
police as a hotbed of corruption, there is no slander that can be prosecuted, because this
class is too big. and generalized It is too general to affect any of its members. In

17
. Ibid, para14.
 Narottamdas v. Maganbhai18, the Gujarat High Court held that it is not defamatory to
describe lawyers as mediators of disputes in newspaper editorial articles. Gujarati’s
lawyers caused a stir over the appointment and transfer of the Chief Justice. Due to the
turmoil, the lawyer stopped participating in court proceedings and turned to satyagraha
for help. A newspaper editorial criticized whether the class of lawyers should strike. The
editorial described the lawyer as kajia dalal or dispute broker. A lawyer filed a
defamation lawsuit against the publisher.

The Gujarat High Court held that, according to the author, the editorial did not mention
him or anyone else, but classified lawyers as one category, at most Gujarat lawyers.
Therefore, unlike other members of the Brotherhood of Lawyers, the alleged defamation
cannot be submitted to a specific or identifiable law department or category. In addition,
the word kajia dalal, which means intermediary in disputes, uses lawyers as a class in
editorials, and cannot refer to a certain part of lawyers, that is, lawyers who participate in
agitation.

 Defamation Cases--Only Aggrieved Party Can File Complaint

The Kerala High Court likewise remarked on the way that the standard of methodology in
cases claiming defamation isn't equivalent to in normal criminal cases; for, area 199, CrPC,
gives that as opposed to the overall principle that anybody can record a criminal objection
regardless of whether the complainant is the person in question or distressed gathering or not,
for the situation, of slander alone, the grievance can legitimately be documented simply by
the gathering oppressed or influenced by the disparaging attributions. In the current case, the
grievance was not recorded by the individual of the local area straightforwardly abused, and
thus, the objection was held not to be legitimate and accordingly responsible to be subdued.

In Swamy Aroopananda v. Bagmisri Nilamadhoboa Brahma 19, the Orissa High Court
quashed a complaint filed by an advocate for publication of defamatory and false allegations
against the Commissioner of Endowments on the ground that he was not an aggrieved person.

In John Thomas v. Dr K Jagdeesan20, the Supreme Court ruled that the Directors of the
company against which defamatory imputations are made are aggrieved parties. They have,
therefore, the locus standi to file the complaint.

18
. Narottamdas v Maganbhai (1984) Cr LJ 1790 (Guj)
19
. Swamy Aroopananda v Bagmisri Nilamadhoboa Brahma (2000) Cr LJ 4296 (Ori)
20
. John Thomas v. Dr K Jagdeesan (2001) Cr LJ 3322 (SC)
  Defaming a Government Institution--When Liable

In the case of Sasikumar B Menon v. S Vijayan 21, the Kerala High Court heard the case
brought by the Director of the Trivandrum Regional Narcotics Control Bureau against the
defendant and the plaintiff, saying that the latter had interviewed some of the defendants in
the case on TV, And the statement broadcast on TV, but did not verify the authenticity of the
complainant’s statement. These statements contained a complaint against a policeman who
arrested and allegedly tortured them. The author believes that the overall reputation of the
Kerala police has been affected by this publication. Therefore, according to Article 500 read
with the IPC, the defendant is responsible for the crime.

The High Court held that the Kerala Police is not a clear and determinable institution, but a
constantly changing institution. People continue to retire and are rehired. Therefore, the
nature of the police force changes from time to time. The proof is that the association or
collection can be determined, and it can be proven that these words or inferences are for all
members of the association or collection, in this case, any individual member can file a
complaint. In view of this, the complaint cannot be upheld because the complainant is not the
person affected by the so-called defamatory speech. Furthermore, the complaint did not raise
specific charges against specific words that constitute defamation. Failure to fully remove the
defamation words in the complaint is considered a defect and cannot be repaired at a later
stage. Consequently, the complaint was withdrawn.

Explanation 3: Defamation by Innuendo

When a particular paragraph is not defamatory on the surface, the complainant can prove,
from the situation and the nature of the post, that it is defamatory. The explanation that the
article is called libel is called innuendo. Satire or satirical language is often more bitter,
powerful and impressive than bad statements. Next, it is necessary for the prosecution to
determine that although these words are innocent on the surface, they are intended to be used
to defame. Therefore, saying that a lawyer is an honest lawyer can be defamatory, which
means that it is the opposite of honesty.

Explanation 4: What is Harming Reputation?

This explanation outlines the different ways a person's reputation can be damaged. He said
that the imposition must directly or indirectly degrade the moral or intellectual character of

21
. Sasikumar B Menon v. S Vijayan (1998) Cr LJ 3973 (Ker)
the person being smeared. The language of explanation 4 is very loose. It means including the
degradation of class and community, in parties, etc. In one case, the plaintiff was demoted by
a panchayat of his caste comrades, on the grounds that there was inappropriate intimacy
between him and a woman outside his caste. Several members of his caste addressed a letter
to other members of his caste, generally affirming the truth about the complainant's
excommunication and the reason for it, and at the same time asking all members of the caste
to not to dine with him or to bring him into their homes. Comments deemed defamatory and
excessive publicity are made and insignificant opportunities are seized for this purpose which
have been organized not to save them in exceptional circumstances. In Thiagaraya v.
Krishnasami22, the plaintiff, a Brahmin who had been dismissed, was brought in by the caste
executive committee after performing due diligence ceremonies. Defendant, who refused to
re-admit the applicant, issued and distributed leaflets describing the applicant as a sinner
(Doshi) in the bazaar with an interval of 6 months Punishment of excommunication in
society. The indiscriminate distribution of flyers only constituted libel. However, when the
accused was invited to a feast in the latter’s house with many others and sat down for dinner,
he was asked by the accused to leave the place without cause. It was said that he could not
prove the guilt of defamation because there was no property that, of any kind, counted as a
disgrace to the applicant. However, when the Hindus feasted, the accused declared that he
was not fit to sit in exile, and he was charged with defamation.

In the case of Panna Lal23, the defendant published, during an election campaign, a poster
against the plaintiff, his rival candidate, a lawyer, saying: 'The hollowness of Mr X's capacity
as a Barrister has been exposed.' It was held that the accused was guilty of defamation, as the
imputation was calculated to lower the judgment of others, their intellectual qualities and
their aptitude for the legal profession.

First Exception: Truth for Public Good

This exception concedes that the publication of the truth is sufficient justification, if it is
made in the public interest. Truth in itself is not a justification in criminal law, although it is
an adequate justification in civil law of schemes. In the UK, under the Lord Campbell Act
1843, it is a good defence if the defendant justifies his defamation on the basis that: (1) it is
true; and (2) that its publication is of public interest; but (3) such a defence cannot be
investigated unless it is explicitly invoked. In this regard, the laws in India are the same.
22
. Thiagaraya v. Krishnasami (1892) ILR 15 Mad 214
23
. (1935) Cr LJ 1039
According to Section 106, India's Evidence Act 1872 (Evidence Act) who made the same
plea to avoid sin. We must keep in mind that in British and Indian law there is no truth to
justify the defamation of the state known as sedition and against its religion (Article 298,
IPC). The first law commissioners recommended that the truth itself be recognized as a valid
defence in all cases, but the legislature refused to accept it. Currently, the law has established
that the truth is only justified if it is in the public interest.

The authors of the IPC observed: “There are undoubtedly many cases in which the spreading
of true reports, prejudicial to the character of an individual, would hurt the feelings of that
individual, without producing compensating advantage in any other quarter. The proclaiming
to the world that a man keeps a mistress, that he is too much addicted to wine, that he is
penurious in his house-keeping, that he is slovenly in his person; the raking up of ridiculous
and degrading stories about the youthful indiscretions of a man, who has long lived
irreproachably as a husband and a father, and who has attained some post which requires
gravity and even sanctity of character, can seldom or never produce any good to the public
sufficient to compensate for the pain given to the person attacked and to those who are
connected with him.”24

To benefit from the exception, the defendant must prove that his or her testimony is
substantially true and in the public interest. However, a court, while deciding on the veracity
of such a claim and protecting the public interest, is not expected to weigh it in a fine scale. It
has to give some allowance to the accused.

Second Exception: Fair Criticism of Public Servants

The first exception concerns allegations of fact, while the second exception concerns the
expression of opinions. In the second and subsequent exceptions, what is protected is an
opinion and not a statement. They really are the fair share of male commentators in the public
on matters of public interest. Every citizen has the right to comment on such acts of public
men in which he is interested as an object of the kingdom, if he does not make his
commentary a cloak for evil, slander and slander. A writer in the public press has the same
right as any other person, and it is his prerogative, if not his duty, to comment on the conduct
of public figures, which not only himself, but also concerns the public, and whose discussion
is in the public interest. Further, when a person considers the public conduct of the public to
be commented upon and is in the public interest, he or she is not required to act if the
24
. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th Edition, 2014)707
comments are made honestly and honestly believes that the truth is what it is. declare them,
and without wilfully misrepresenting the facts or any false statements, that they would have
known to be false statements had he exercised normal care.

Element of Good Faith--Importance

The term 'good faith' appears in exceptions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Section 52, IPC, defines
'good faith' thus: 'Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or
believed without due care and attention'.

The IPC considers honesty to be unimportant and the presence of "care and attention" as the
most important ingredient. Dishonesty within the meaning of this article is simply
recklessness or negligence, and wanting to exercise diligence and discretion does not imply
any idea of dishonesty. Prudent and attentive to any belief equals reasonable and probable
reason, it generally depends on the overall situation of the case and not on negligence
launching a particular investigation, which could enlighten it. In many cases in India,
defendants in this type of case have to prove, not only that he believes the testimony he is
giving on a particular occasion, but that he has a reasonable basis on which to lay charges, by
showing. that this is true, or that he has reasonable grounds to believe that it is true, having
regard to the source of the information he has received. The absence of a valid reason for
lodging a complaint is proof of a lack of good faith.

The Opinion must be Fair and Honest

No opinion can be considered correct unless it contains a basis of truth. In the EI Howard v.
M Mull25 case, the plaintiff EI Howard, director of public education at the Bombay
Presidential Palace, sued the Times of India partner for defaming him in a series of articles in
which the defendant accused forced his prostitution complainant into an official position.
with the aim of ensuring the realization of his personal interests through the sale of school
books of which he had illegally appropriated the copyright. The Bombay High Court ruled
that the respondent failed to provide solid evidence for his allegations and that his status as a
journalist did not confer upon him greater immunity than any other member of the public. He
received damages up to Rs 2,500.

The law does not mean that a man can fabricate facts and comment on created facts in a fair
and good faith manner, claiming that the facts are true. If the facts claimed for the defence do

25
. EI Howard v. M Mull (1866) 1 Bom HCR App 85, pp 86-91
not exist, the basis for the defence is unsuccessful. Lord Herschell in Davis v. Shepstone26,
while delivering the Privy Council ruling, said: “There is no doubt that the public acts of a
man of the public can legally become the subject of comment or just equitably quoted, not
only by the press but by all members of the public. But it is not possible to remember too
stark distinctions between a comment or criticism and an actual accusation, such as shameful
acts done or shameful language used. It is one thing to comment on or criticize, even
seriously, a men confessed or proven act in public, and another is to assert that he has
committed a crime because of a specific fault.

Third Exception: Fair Comment on Public Conduct of Public Men Other Than Public
Servants

In fact, this led to criticism of questions from the audience. With progressive marches in all
democratic countries, citizens have become increasingly interested in public affairs and these
publicists have become vigilant defenders of the rights of the people. The IPC editors wrote
about this exception:

‘There are public men who are not public servants; Non-functional people can still be very
actively involved in promoting or opposing the adoption of measures that the community
cares deeply about. It is clear, therefore, that anyone should be allowed to comment in good
faith on the actions of these volunteer officials, with the same freedom as they are allowed to
comment on the actions of official officials. To be successful in a fair defence, the defendant
must demonstrate that his or her opinion is fair and honest and that the alleged fact on which
the opinion is expressed is true.’27

Rights of the Press

The media and media professionals (including print and electronic media) generally have no
greater or lesser rights or freedoms than ordinary citizens. The basic premise for considering
the issue of defamation in the media was considered in the case of Campbell v. Spottiswood28,
in which Crompton J held: “I have always in my experience heard it laid down that although
you may attack a public person for anything he has done publicly, the moment you go beyond
that and impute wickedness to him, then you come with the rule with regard to all who
publish a libel, which is that you must prove that the imputations are true.”

26
. Davis v. Shepstone 11 App Cas 187
27
. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th Edition, 2014)708
28
. Campbell v. Spottiswood 32 LQB 185
However, the law is that a matter of public interest should not be assessed by the courts on
any given issue, and that certain grants should be given for passion, hot passion, and what the
writer might consider to be an issue. justifiable indignation. The fact that the language is
exaggerated, or even grossly exaggerated, does not make the comment necessarily unfair, if,
so to speak, a righteous man could have done so in the past. Thus, when the defendant
publishes his views on a municipality whose members know that none of them is fit to
exercise the functions of president and that the government has ordered that the president be
chamberlain, it is a fact, the court acquitted the defendant that his statement did not exceed
the limit of fair comments.

In the case of Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar29, the Supreme Court
held the publisher of the newspaper, which published a ministerial statement made on the
floor of the House of Commons on the embezzlement of public funds not guilty of
defamation. However, there can be no general rule governing the responsibilities of a
newspaper editor as each case has different circumstances and circumstances. Therefore, each
case must be decided on the basis of the facts and their circumstances.

Summary of Principles Governing Rights of Press and Media

The principles relating to alleged rights, privileges, duties and responsibilities of the
newspapers in respect of the publication of news items as also cases relating to the doctrine of
fair comment, may be summed up as follows:

(1) There is no kind of privilege associated with journalism over the members of the public.
'The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and his
privilege are not higher than that of the members of the public.' The scope of his statements,
criticisms, or comments is as wide as that of any other citizen, but not wider than that of any
other citizen.

(2) However, in the context of a welfare state, aiming at economic and social justice for all,
the role of a newspaper editor cannot be ignored as a representative of the people. people,
zealously venting public emotions, analysing public opinion, and venting. public grievances
to combat complacency, and above all, to generate and educate healthy public opinions in
favour of the public welfare. Therefore, it is important to keep this review in mind in order to
assess the reality, the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and its scope.

29
. Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar AIR 1998 SC 2117
(3) The fair comment safeguard only applies to the expression of a character's point of view
or implication and does not apply to assertions of fact. Although slanderous facts are
defamatory in themselves, they can only be justified by factuality and publication in the
public interest and by reference to exceptional circumstances, and sincere belief in the fact of
slander can't help and no fair comment protections could possibly arise.

(4) If an opinion or character implication is allegedly founded and related to facts; the
claimant of the exceptions must prove those facts. It is not enough for him to say that he
believes these facts. A fair comment cannot justify a defamatory statement which is in fact
false. In P Ramaswamy v. Mr. Karunanidhi30, the Madras High Court held that the appeal
for a fair comment would not be allowed, unless the facts are proven reasonable to make such
an offer. When biased and dirty motives, not proven by facts, are imposed on a person, the
excuse the publisher has in good faith believes that he is publishing what is true. would not be
a timely excuse. “Goodwill” means good faith and also prudence and care. "Due diligence
and due diligence" mean that the slanderer must show that he has taken special steps to seek
the truth and that he warrants his investigation as a legitimate man. reason that he has
succeeded in reaching a real conclusion. A mere subjective belief, without any objective
basis, is not a reliable criterion for justifying publication, on the grounds that it is done in
good faith and in the public interest.

In the case of G Chandrasekhara Pillai v. G Raman Pillai 31, the Kerala High Court noted
that a defence in good faith means a genuine effort to arrive at the truth and a mere belief in
the truth, and such a defence has no reasonable basis and is It is not synonymous with good
faith. Therefore, the ninth exception involves two issues; evidence of good faith and
reasonable care and skill, taking into account the occasion and the circumstances.

Fourth Exception: Report of Proceedings of Courts of Justice

The grounds for the privilege to report exactly what is happening in court (as Lord Halsbury
pointed out) is that the proceedings are public. Therefore, publication of what is happening
there, even if it turns out to be defamatory to certain individuals should also be published, as
such publication expands the area of the court and the public has the right to know what is
happening in the courtroom. inside the courthouse. Accordingly, the report must fairly
present to the reader what he would have learned for himself had he been present.

30
. P Ramaswamy v. Mr. Karunanidhi (1970) LW 245 (Cri)
31
. G Chandrasekhara Pillai v. G Raman Pillai (1964) Ker LJ 317
In the fourth exception, nothing is said about "good faith"; The only requirement is that the
report is essentially true. However, such a report is punishable under Article 292, IPC, if it
contains pornographic material. In the UK, reports on Parliamentary debates are preceded by
the same principle as legal proceedings, namely public order, of allowing people to know
what is going on in the Parliament. In India too, a law was passed by Parliament giving the
privilege of qualifying newspapers, which publish essentially accurate reports on
Parliamentary procedures. In India, there is Parliamentary Procedures (Publication
Protection) Act 1956 which provides, subject to public interest, a qualifying prerogative of
publishing a truthful account. about Parliamentary proceedings, in a newspaper or from a
radio station in India. Although this law was repealed by the Ordinance for the prevention of
publication of wrongdoing, 1975 in the state of emergency of 1975, it was reinstated in 1977
by the repeal law of 1977 (Law 14 of 1977) by Janata's government, repealed the 1975 law.
But the same privilege was not extended to state legislatures.

In the case of Jatish Chandra Ghose v. Dr Hari Sadan Mukherjee 32, it was held that though
the fourth exception does not take the proceedings of the houses of the parliament and houses
of legislatures into its consideration but the constitution of India protects the members of
legislature and parliament for their speeches and votes on the floor of the house under articles
105 and 194.

Fifth Exception: Comment on Cases

This exception ensures bona fide comments on cases arbitrated, but not when they are still
sub-judice. Everybody encompasses a right to examine decently and bona fide administration
of justice as evidenced before courts. Justice Fitzgerald said thus: “It is open to one to show
that error was committed on the part of the judges or jury, nay, further, for myself I will say
that the judges invite discussion of their acts in the administration of the law, and it is a relief
to them to see error pointed out, if it is committed, yet whilst they invite the fair discussion, it
is not open to a journalist to impute corruption.” 33 But the comment must be confined to the
merits of the case including the conduct of parties, their agent and witnesses since the
expression of such opinion must be made in good faith. It follows that it must be fair and
honest, based upon reason or discussion and not merely declamation and invective, written
not with a view to advance public good, but solely to bring into contempt and hatred the
administration of justice or injure the character of individuals. So again, the critic may
32
. Jatish Chandra Ghose v. Dr Hari Sadan Mukherjee AIR 1961 SC 613
33
. Re Sullivan 11 CSX 57
criticize the state of the law, the administration of which leads to such startling result, but he
cannot directly blame the judge personally, though it is quite different to say that the judges
had misunderstood or misapplied the law or omitted to consider or apply it correctly. Though
Such criticisms are made in the public press, but they are not defamatory in nature, hence
does not amount to any action, as they are protected under this exception as well as the
second exception.34

The Delhi High Court decision in Ashok Kumar v. Radha Kishan35, following the precedent
of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal36, it was
held that that section 499, IPC, confers only qualified privilege within the corners of that
section. Section 499 confers only qualified privilege on certain occasions. It is common to
talk of the explanation as having benefit, but it is an event and not the explanation, which is
favoured.

Sixth Exception: Literary Criticism

The motive behind this exception of is that public should have the benefit of free criticism of
all public performances submitted to its judgment. As Lord Ellenborough observed: “without
liberty of criticism we neither have purity of state nor of morals”. Fair discussion is very
important for the truth of history and advancement of science. This exception is especially for
literary and dramatic criticisms of literary men and dramatists. The essential conditions for
this exception are as follows:

(1) That the author must have expressly or by implication invited public criticism, which he
may do by the mere act of publication, though he may not distribute his work for review.

(2) The criticism must relate to the merits of the performance as distinct from the general
capacity of the performer.

(3) It must be made in good faith.

The term 'author' in this exception includes a designer of a public building, an inventor, a
painter, an architect, an editor or a correspondent of the press and the like. In the case of
Merivale v. Carson37, Lord Esher stated: “Every latitude must be given to opinion and to
prejudice, and then an ordinary set of men with ordinary judgment must say whether any fair

34
. Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, vol 4, eighth edn, Law Publishers, Allahabad, p 3686.
35
. Ashok Kumar v. Radha Kishan (1983) Cr LJ 48 (Del)
36
. Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal (1983) Cr LJ 48 (Del)
37
. Merivale v. Carson [1920] QBD 275, pp 289-91.
man would have made such a comment on the work. It is very easy to say what would be
clearly beyond that limit, if, for instance, the writer attacked the private character of the
author. But it is much more difficult to say what is within the limit. That must depend upon
the circumstances of the particular case.”

The critic misdescribed Merivale's play as immoral, though there was nothing immoral in it
in the case of Merivale. The defendant was held liable on the ground that he had overstepped
the boundaries of fair criticism. Similarly, when the defendant wrote an article advising an
actor to return to his old profession, that of a waiter, when in fact the actor was never a waiter
in his life, the defendant was held liable for defamation.38

Seventh Exception: Censure by One in Authority

This special case permits an individual beneath whose specialist others have been put, either
by their possess assent or by the law, to guarantee in great confidence, those who are so put
beneath his specialist, as distant as respects matter to which that specialist relates. Be that as
it may, the benefit does not legitimize distribution in overabundance of the reason or protest
which gives rise to it. A man may in great confidence complain of the conduct of a servant to
the master, indeed in spite of the fact that the complaint sums to defamation, but he isn't
protected on the off chance that he distributes the complaint in a daily paper. Overdoing of
the same destroys the opportunity. The two essential conditions for the application of this
exception are:

(1) That the censure must be on the conduct of the person within the scope of the critic's
authority.

(2) The censure must be passed in good faith.

In the Madras High Court case of Sukratendra Thirtha Swamiar v. Prabhu39, where a swami
issued a brief restriction against two individuals of his caste, on the ground of their affirmed
inter-dining with untouchables (part of the Dalit or planned caste community), and the
prohibition was issued ex parte in see of the dread that they might take portion within the
sanctuary feasts to be held without further ado from there on, there was nothing to appear that
the swami was not aiming to take after up the transitory prohibited with his last choice after
hearing the individual influenced. Swami was not held liable in this case by the court. Caste

38
. Dupiani v Davis (1886) 3 TLR 184.

39
. Sukratendra Thirtha Swamiar v Prabhu (1945) Mad LJ 116.
affiliations are independent, the powers vested in their constituted heads being, subject to any
custom, those essential for the assurance of interface committed to their charge. The court's as
it where obligation is to see that those powers are worked out in agreement with the standards
of natural justice, that is, the person to be affected by their proceedings must be heard and his
defence has been given fair consideration.

Eighth Exception: Complaint to Authority

This exception refers to a complaint made to a superior about conduct of his subordinate.
According to the authors of the IPC: 'We allow a person to prefer an accusation against
another, in good faith, to any person who has lawful authority to restrain or punish the
accused'. The two conditions for availing defence under this exception are:

(1) The accusation must be made to a person who has authority over the party accused.

(2) That the accusation must be preferred in good faith.

Lawful Authority--Defect in Presentation of the Complaint to Proper Authority

In order to avail this defence, the complaint must have been made to the lawful authority. If a
complaint about the conduct of a bank employee is made to a medical doctor, it is certainly
beyond the scope of the doctor. It is important for the person to whom the complaint is made,
to have jurisdiction over the same matter, for the petition to be considered.

Is Communication Between Wife and Husband Privileged?

The issue of whether the letters written by a husband to his wife containing defamatory
imputations against the wife's father would be protected by the Eighth Exception to section
499 of IPC, came to be considered in the case of MC Verghese v. TJ Ponnan40. In this case,
the daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent. The respondent wrote three
letters to his wife, who at that time was residing with her parents, containing defamatory
statements made by the respondent against the plaintiff. Therefore, appellant filed a criminal
complaint before the district magistrate, who held that letters between a wife and her husband
containing defamatory imputations about another does not amount to publication in law,
since husband and wife are considered one body in the eyes of law. Relying on an English
law, it was held that the communication was privileged, and no evidence could be given in
the court in relation to that communication. However, the sessions court reversed the above
order, on the ground that the doctrine of common law relied upon by the district magistrate
40
. MC Verghese v. TJ Ponnan AIR 1970 SC 1876
that the wife and husband were one, could not be applied in India and section 122 of the
Evidence Act, does not prohibit proof being tendered in courts of such letters. The district
magistrate was directed to proceed with the case but, the high court reversed this order.

The Supreme Court, relying upon an earlier Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court,
observed that the exceptions enumerated in section 499 were exhaustive as to the cases they
cover. Additional grounds taking recourse to English law could not be permitted over and
beyond the exceptions which were already stated in section 499. Thus: “A person making
libellous statements in his complaint filed in court is not absolutely protected in a criminal
proceeding for defamation, for under the eighth exception and the illustration to section 499,
the statements are privileged only when they are made in good faith. There is authority
therefore for the proposition that in determining the criminality of any act under the IPC, the
courts will not extend the scope of special exceptions by resorting to the rule peculiar in
English common law that the husband and wife are regarded as one.”41

On the issue of whether the letters were barred from being tendered before the court under
section 122 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court stated that, “while prima facie the
communications may not be permitted to be deposed to or disclosed unless the husband
consents, this fact, however, could not bar any other type of evidence being given in the
trial.” Hence, the case was sent back to the district magistrate for a new trial.

Ninth Exception: Imputation for Protection of Interests

The ninth exception is that honest communications in business and social relationships must
be adequately protected as long as the parties act in good faith. The ninth and tenth
exceptions relate to the case of bona fide crediting of a person for the protection of his or her
interests or for the common good and the case of caution aimed at the good of the person to
whom it is communicated or the good public; In a sense, the ninth exception formulates a
general principle that exceptions 7, 8 and 10 are special cases, so that the entire series of 7-10
exceptions under the heading “Communications of a privileged occasion, i.e. when fulfilling
an obligation to protect an interest of the creator. The ninth exception includes the first
exception, which relates to all crediting in good faith, while the first exception only applies to
crediting that serves good will. Under the ninth exception, the accused does not need to
establish that every word that he has spoken or written is true. The Supreme Court, in the
case of Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab42, has explained the true scope of the ninth
41
. Tiruvengada Mudali v Tripurasundari Ammal AIR 1926 Mad 906
42
. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97
exception to under section 499 and the difference between the First Exception and the ninth
exception. The complaint was filed against the accused who then was the State Secretary of
the Punjab Praja Socialist Party, and had published a highly defamatory article of the
complainant, Surinder Singh the son of the then Chief Minister in the Blitz Weekly. One of
the allegedly defamatory statements is that he is not only the leader of smugglers, but also
responsible for various crimes in Punjab. The statement added 'that because the culprit
happens to be the Chief Minister's son, the cases are also shelved up'. The accused pleaded
that the imputation made against the complainant were made in good faith and for public
good falling under exception 9 of section 499. And he did not press his defence under the first
exception. he Supreme Court, after carefully examining the evidence, ruled that the defendant
must demonstrate both good faith and the common good in order to establish a defence claim
under exception 9. Lack of personal malice was held to be one of the indicators of good faith,
which was held to be proved in the facts of the case. Similarly, both the trial court and the
high court had come to a unanimous conclusion that the publication was in the public interest,
since both elements had to be proven for the assertion of protection under exception 9 and in
the present case both had been proven, the defendant was Supreme Court acquitted.

Privileges of Judges and Lawyers

The privileges of various professional groups such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, judges,
etc. fall under the ninth exception to Article 499, but whether they are judges or lawyers, they
do not enjoy privileges or absolute protection under the law. They are protected by the
principles that govern the functioning of the ninth exception, that is, they must demonstrate
good faith, so there is only one qualified privilege that is limited by good faith.

As for judges, Article 97 of the IPC undoubtedly protects them for acts they undertake in the
course of their judicial proceedings, and the illustration of the seventh exception to the article
also protects judges by censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness. Thus, they also
cannot claim absolute privilege, and at best can claim limited or qualified privilege.43

While there is a general trend toward deciding that advocates do not have unqualified
privilege, there is also a counter-argument that prosecutions must be closely supervised since
lawyers may be unable to do their profession without fear.

43
. Munithayamma v Muddobalappa AIR 1955 Mys 135
In the case of Parameswara Kurup v. Krishna Pillai 44, this viewpoint was articulated. The
petitioner, a practising lawyer, was accused under section 500 read with section 36 of the IPC
in this case. The complaint was that certain false and defamatory charges were made against
the complainant in the first accused's counter-statement in various court proceedings, and that
similar defamatory allegations were made against the complainant in the first accused's
counter-statement. It was decided that even if the lawyer was the one who drafted her written
declarations, he could not be held liable. A lawyer owes a duty to his client, and he must
follow his client's orders to the letter. It is the obligation of counsel to plead severe
allegations against a party in a suit in the plaint, written statement, or other pleadings if the
client raises serious allegations against that party. The lawyer cannot be expected to act as a
judge, and it is not his responsibility to assess whether or not the client's statement is true. If
significant and false allegations are made, he exposes himself to defamation charges, but he
cannot be effectively prosecuted unless it is demonstrated that he acted in bad faith or
intentionally. The defence of the ninth exception to section 499 is available to counsel, but he
would lose it if he abused his position and made claims intentionally or for his personal gain.

A similar view was taken in the Filomena Pereira v. Joao Lourenco Fernandes45 case, in
which the Bombay Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer cannot be sued for defamatory
statements in an affidavit he himself filed in the case Complaints about the character of the
other party. The court also said that no lawyer can perform his duties to his client and will not
be able to practice unless lawyers are believed to be acting without malice.

Tenth Exception: Caution in Good Faith

The Tenth Exception covers cases of imputations within the release of a social obligation,
such as, when A says to his intimate companion B, that C his expelled worker, who presently
seeks employment under B, may be an unscrupulous man and should not to be trusted. So
moreover, a connection may unquestionably prompt a woman not to wed a specific suitor,
and may or may not clear out reasons in which case the explanation will be advantaged. An
individual cannot claim benefit by only composing on his letter, 'Private and Confidential'.
But two people may truly make a communication private within the expansive sense of the
term, in the event that there’s, in reality, such a relationship between them. Such relationship
exists between advisor and client, wife and husband, guardian and ward, master and servant,
teacher and student and between close friends.
44
. Parameswara Kurup v. Krishna Pillai AIR 1966 Ker 264
45
. Filomena Pereira v. Joao Lourenco Fernandes (1981) Cr LJ 117 (Bom)
When a person seeks defence under the Tenth Exception, it is important for him to establish
that the accusation in question was in 'good faith' and was for the 'public good'. A mere plea
that, in his understanding what was stated was in good faith, does not amount to defence. He,
however, is not required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. He gets discharged the moment
he succeeds in proving a prevalence of probability.

SCOPE OF SECTIONS 499 AND 500, INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

Distinction Between Libel of Court and Contempt of Court

Libel of Court may not necessarily mean that contempt of court had taken place and vice-
versa. In the case of Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras 46, the Supreme Court
held that a newspaper item containing accusations about a judicial officer's integrity, could be
liable for action under section 499. It could also be liable for action under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. It means that, under IPC what is punishable is the offence of defamation as
defamation not as contempt of court. However, it is not necessary for every case where the
integrity of judge is attacked, would amount to contempt of court although, it may be a
subject-matter of libel action.

Whether Accurate and True Report of Assembly Proceedings Published in Newspapers

Would Amount to Defamation

In the case of Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar 47, the respondent
namely Kapsikar, filed a criminal complaint under sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with
section 34, IPC, alleging that the appellant, Jawaharlal Darda as Chief Editor of Lokmat and
others had carried a news item of the legislative proceedings in the Maharashtra Assembly.
During the proceeding, a question arose about the misappropriation of the public fund allotted
to the plaintiff for public welfare. The minister replied that, according to the preliminary
enquiry some misappropriation had taken place, and after being asked several times, he
revealed the names of five persons, amongst which petitioner was one of them. This piece of
news was reported and as believed by the petitioner; it had defamed him. However, as per the
apex court the newspaper had only reported an accurate and true report of the proceedings,
and that in bona fide belief and good faith, the newspaper believed the version of the minister
to be true and published the same. Therefore, it was a report connected with the public
conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds for public good. Thus,

46
. Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v State of Madras AIR 1952 SC 149
47
. Jawaharlal Darda v Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar AIR 1998 SC 2117
according to the facts revealed in the case, the news item was published for the good of
public and hence the complaint was quashed.

In Matters Personally Defaming the Governor, His Personal Authorisation is a Must

This issue was considered in the case of Gour Chandra Rout v. Public Prosecutor,
Cuttack48, where, the Oriya daily ‘Mathrubhumi’ carried a news item related to Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia, alleging that the Governor, Mr Sukthankar had an individual support from
the Congress Government of Orissa which was the reason for the non-acceptance of the
renunciation of the Congress Service. The Representative had sent a note to the Government
asking them to require such activity as fundamental. The apex Court held that under section
198B(3)(a), CrPC, the Governor has to begin with to consider for himself whether the
charged defamatory articulation was such that he ought to take individual note of and look for
legitimate activity to vindicate himself. After this, the sanction had to be gotten, which could
only be given by the Secretary to the Representative, on his direction. Since in the given case
none of these procedures were followed, the conviction of the editor and distributer of the
paper were set aside and the denounced cleared of the offense of defamation.

Who Should, in a Newspaper, be Prosecuted for Making Defamatory Imputations?

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. RB Chowdhary49, the editorial board members were
prosecuted for publishing a defamatory article. article. In this case, it was found that the
printer, editor and publisher, as recognised by the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867,
were the same person. Therefore, the prosecution against other members of the editorial
board were directed to be left out of the proceedings, as they were neither the editor or
publisher nor they had any knowledge about the concerned article.

Another issue that arose after this was, whether the term 'editor' under the Press and
Registration of Books Act 1867 would also include the positions chief editor, managing
director and others. This issue was solved in the case of CB Solanki v. Srikanta Parishar 50,
where the Karnataka High Court held that the definition of the term 'editor' would not include
chief editor or managing director, particularly when an allegation has been made in the
complaint against them. Therefore, the clearing of charges of the accused persons, who were
involved with the publishing of a Hindi news weekly titled, Dakshina Deep by the trial court
was held to be proper.
48
. Gour Chandra Rout v Public Prosecutor, Cuttack AIR 1963 SC 1198
49
. State of Maharashtra v RB Chowdhary AIR 1968 SC 110
50
. CB Solanki v Srikanta Parishar (1997) Cr LJ 3050 (Kant)
However, in order to prosecute the chief-editor and the publisher of a newspaper for
publishing a defamatory matter or a news item, it is essential for the complainant to prima
facie appear that both of them had the information of the defamatory character of the matter
distributed or they, with others, had shared the imperative deliberate in distributing the
matter. However, it is not necessary for him to show such knowledge in the case of the
executive editor of a newspaper as he is supposed to have the requisite knowledge of the
defamatory contents of the published objectionable matter.

Defamation of Wife by Husband

In the case of Mukund Martand Chitnis v. Madhuri Chitnis 51, the chastity of the wife was
suspected by the husband on the wedding night. This suspicion led to various dissatisfactions
between them. This situation escalated into them separating within one month of the
wedding. A complaint of theft was held up against the wife and her house was searched for
the gold ornaments, which the husband had alleged to be stolen. Two cases of defamation
were filed against the husband, for which the trial declared the husband not guilty.

However, on appeal in the Bombay High Court, the court overruled the judgement of the trial
court and sentenced the husband to two months rigorous imprisonment and imposed on him a
fine of Rs 2,000. On a further appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a compromise was
reached by which the husband agreed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs One lakh along
with unqualified apologies. The Supreme Court noted that if not for the serious view taken by
the high court, the woman would not have been able to ratify her honour and receive
compensation for the defamatory statements.

No Vicarious Liability in Absence of Specific Allegation

In a defamation complaint against a firm comprising of associates, for a letter supposedly

issued within the title cushion of the firm, no particular affirmation was made approximately
the part of the other accomplice. Not one or the other did the complainant in his explanation
on pledge clarify the part of the other accomplice. In such a case, when no particular
affirmation was made around an individual affirmed to have defamed the complainant, it was
held that the complaint was without basis and thus got to be revoked. It can be seen in the
case of Narendra Kapoor v. Ramesh C Bansal52, where the petitioner alleged that two
persons, namely, Narender Kapoor and Pramod Adlakha committed offences by making a

51
. Mukund Martand Chitnis v. Madhuri Chitnis AIR 1992 SC 1804
52
. Narendra Kapoor v. Ramesh C Bansal (1998) Cr LJ 1863 (Del).
defamatory letter of the petitioner public. However, the letter was only signed by Pramod
Adlakha under the head of the firm. The Delhi High Court held that there cannot be any
common vicarious criminal obligation on the rest of the accomplices of the firm, who did not
sign the letter affirmed to contain the defamatory ascriptions.

When Authorship is not Proved

The defendant cannot be held in a case where, it cannot be proved that, the defendant is the
author of the defamatory content. It can be seen in the case of Madhab Charan Dash v.
Amiya Prasad Mishra53, wherein a letter was sent to the petitioner by the defendant
containing scurrilous remarks about him without the signature of the defendant. Before the
magistrate, it could not be proved that the defendant was the author of the letter, thus he was
acquitted. In this case, the Orissa High Court held that, in case of defamation when there is no
material to show that the defendant was the author of the letter containing scurrilous remarks
against the petitioner, then the case could not be proved as against him and his acquittal by
the trial court was therefore proper.

REFORM PROPOSALS

Although the Fifth Law Commission, agrees with the need to have defamation as an offence
it, to some extent, as it restricts the freedom of speech and expression. They suggested a few
changes in the definition of 'defamation' under section 499 and in the sections 500 to 502
providing punishment for the same. It proposed:

(1) Explanation of the fourth exception to section 499 should be deleted.

(2) The second sentence, i.e., 'whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact', in
the First Exception to section 499 should be deleted as it, owing to the abolition of jury trials
in India, has lost its significance.

(3) The Fourth Exception to section 499 should be confined only to the reporting of
proceedings in 'open court' and of the court proceedings held in camera. It accordingly
suggested adding of words 'in open court' after the words 'report of the proceedings' in the
Exception. In the light of the changes proposed by it in the definition of terms 'judge' and
'court of justice', it also suggested deletion of the explanation of the fourth exception.

(4) The existing punishment (of simple imprisonment for a term up to two years, with or
without fine) provided for 'defamation' under sections 500-502 should not necessarily be
53
. Madhab Charan Dash v Amiya Prasad Mishra (1997) Cr LJ 4253 (Ori)
'simple'. It therefore suggested that the 'simple imprisonment' (of a term up to two years)
provided for defamation Under section 500, for printing or engraving a defamatory matter
(under section 501), and for selling printed or engraved defamatory substance containing
defamatory matter (under section 502) should be altered to 'imprisonment of either
description' (of a term up to two years). It also suggested that, where the defamatory
statement has been published in a newspaper, the fact of the offender's conviction should, in
addition to the awarded punishment, be similarly made published and the cost of such
publication, in the form of fine, should be recovered from the offender.

However, the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1978, sought to give effect to the Law
Commissions proposals for reform in section 500, 501 and 502. It did not give any response
to the changes recommended by the Commission in section 499 of the IPC.

The Fourteenth Law Commission also agreed to the changes sought by the clause 201 54.
However, these proposals for reform could not become effective as the 1978 Bill, owing to
the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1979.

54
. Law Commission of India, 'One Hundred and Fifty-Sixth Report: The Indian Penal Code ', Government of
India, 1997, para 12.91.