Assignment of Law of Crimes

TOPIC:Defamation under IPC

Submitted By

Name: MD JUNAID RUB : B.A.LLB. (HONS)

Regular

Roll Number: 30

Semester: Third (2022-2027)

Supervised by –

Dr.Nuzhat Parveen Khan Professor,( Law of Crimes)

Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia, New
Delhi
 INTRODUCTION
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), defamation is primarily covered under
Sections 499 and 500. Here's a brief introduction:

**Section 499:** Definition of Defamation

This section defines defamation as any imputation made by words, either

spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, to harm
a person's reputation. It covers both spoken words and written statements,
gestures, or visual representations that lower the reputation of an individual.

**Section 500:** Punishment for Defamation

Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation. Any person found guilty
of defamation under Section 499 is punishable with simple imprisonment for a
term that may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

It's important to note that there are certain exceptions and defenses available
under the law, such as truth as a defense, good faith for public conduct, and fair
comment on matters of public interest. These exceptions are crucial for ensuring
freedom of speech and expression while balancing the protection of reputation.

Defamation cases are typically dealt with under criminal law in India, though
civil remedies are also available for defamation. Additionally, the law regarding
defamation is subject to interpretation and application by courts based on
various factors and precedents.

Defamation- Meaning
The word Defamation means Abuse, Aspiration, Denigration, Depreciation,
Publication etc. Ordinarily, the offence of defamation is stated to be made
against a person or persons harming his/their reputation. The ingredients of
defamation are-
making or Publishing any imputation concerning any person,
such imputation must have been made with the intention to harm with
knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the
person concerned.
Therefore, the intention to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non of an
offence of defamation under section 499 of Indian Penal Code.

The word makes connotes to make public or make known to person in general.
So, the section 499 of IPC brings under the criminal law, the person who makes
the defamatory imputation. So, there can be no offence of defamation unless the
defamatory statement is made or published by the accused. The word makes or
publishes implementing or supplementing to each other. Where the complaint
did not mention the words used for supposed to be used by the accused, the
Court, would not be in position to decide whether the words used amounted to
insult.

Now, a debate has been started at every public forum that whether defamation
should be decriminalized or not. The issue has been assumed significance by the
recent incidents when Aam Admi Party leader Mr. Arvind Kejriwal was sent to
jail after he refused to furnish bail bond in a defamation case launched by BJP
leader Mr. Nitin Gadkari. Coincidently, the Law Commission of India has also
taken cognizance on the matter and floated a consultation paper seeking
opinions from the stake holders whether defamation should be decriminalized?
Although, the press enjoys freedom of speech and expression under Article 19
(1) (a) of Indian Constitution, defamation is a ground of reasonable restriction
under article 19(2). Currently, civil defamation is dealt with law of torts whereas
criminal defamation is an offence under section 500/504, of Indian Penal Code.

Ingredients of Defamation
To establish a case of defamation under the IPC, certain essential elements must
be fulfilled:

False Statement: The statement in question must be false, implying that it is not
based on truth or reality.
Harm to Reputation: The false statement should have the potential to harm the
reputation of the person it refers to. Reputation includes the opinions others
hold about an individual, affecting their social, professional, or personal
relationships.
Publication: The false statement must be communicated to at least one person
other than the person making the statement and the one being defamed.
Intent or Knowledge: The person making the false statement must have either
the intention to harm the reputation of the individual or knowledge that the
statement is false or likely to harm their reputation.

Types of Defamation

Libel: Libel refers to a false and defamatory statement that is expressed in

writing, print, pictures, or any other visible form. It has a lasting nature, as the
statement remains accessible for an extended period, potentially causing
significant damage to the person’s reputation.
Illustration: P posts a defamatory comment about Q on a popular social media
platform, accusing Q of being involved in criminal activities. Since the
statement is made in a visible form, it constitutes libel.
Slander: Slander, unlike libel, involves spoken defamatory statements or
gestures that are transient in nature. It usually occurs in the form of
conversations, speeches, or broadcasts.
Illustration: R spreads false rumors about S at a public gathering, stating that S
has been dishonest in business dealings. Since the defamatory statement is made
orally, it falls under slander.

Exceptions of Defamation

Section 499 deals with the definition of defamation and certain situations where
making a false remark about another person does not constitute defamation.
Defamation is exempted from the following situations:

1. Imputation of truth, which public good requires to be made or published.

It is not considered defamation to make or publish true statements about a

person if it serves the public interest for those imputations to be disclosed.

2. Public conduct of public servants.

Expressing opinions in good faith about the behavior of a public servant in their
official duties or their character as manifested in such behavior is not
defamation. However, this protection extends only to their conduct and
character as revealed in their public roles.

3. Conduct of any person touching any public question.

Expressing opinions in good faith about the conduct of an individual related to a

public issue, as well as opinions about their character linked to that conduct,
does not amount to defamation.

4. Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.

Publishing reports that accurately represent the proceedings or outcomes of a
court of law is not defamation.

Illustration: A newspaper publishes an article detailing the outcome of a high-

profile court trial, accurately summarizing the verdict and key arguments. As
long as the report is factual, it falls within this exception.

5. Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others

concerned.

Expressing opinions in good faith about the merits of a legally concluded case
or the conduct of individuals involved in the case (parties, witnesses, agents) is
not defamation.

6. Merits of public performance.

Expressing opinions in good faith about the quality of a creative work that its
creator has presented to the public or discussing the creator's character, as
evident in the work, does not amount to defamation.

7. Censure passed by a person with lawful authority.

It is not considered defamation for a person who holds authority over another,
either by law or through a lawful contract, to express sincere criticism regarding
the conduct of the other person in matters relevant to that authority.

Illustration: A teacher provides constructive feedback to a student about their

performance in an academic assignment. As long as the criticism is given in
good faith and pertains to the student's academic work, it qualifies for this
exception.
8. Accusation preferred to authorized person.

Making an accusation against an individual in good faith and with lawful

grounds to a person who holds authorized power over the accused concerning
the subject matter of the accusation is not defamation.

9. Imputation for protection of interests.

It is not defamation to make an imputation about another person's character,

provided the imputation is made in good faith to protect the interests of the
person making it, another person, or the public good.

Illustration: A journalist investigates and exposes financial irregularities within

a corporation, attributing them to a specific executive. As long as the journalist
acts in good faith and aims to safeguard the public interest by revealing
potential misconduct, it is covered by this exception.

10. Caution for the good of a person or public good.

Conveying a caution in good faith to one person regarding another person, with
the intention of benefiting the recipient of the caution, someone connected to
them, or the general public good, does not constitute defamation.

Relevant Case Laws

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994):1

This case is significant as it established the concept of "right to privacy" as a
part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
1
R. Rajagopal and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a person's right to privacy includes
the right to protect their reputation from being tarnished by publication of
private facts. This case provided a framework for balancing freedom of speech
and expression with the right to privacy in defamation cases.

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016):2

In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of
criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The court held that
the right to reputation is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and that criminal defamation laws serve a legitimate aim in
protecting individual reputation.

M.J. Akbar v. Priya Ramani (2019):

This case gained significant attention as it was one of the first high-profile cases
in India during the #MeToo movement. Former Union Minister M.J. Akbar filed
a criminal defamation case against journalist Priya Ramani for accusing him of
sexual harassment. The case sparked debates on the balance between freedom of
speech and reputation. Priya Ramani was acquitted in 2021, with the court
emphasizing the importance of women speaking out against harassment.

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr (2010):3

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of actress Khushboo who was
facing multiple criminal defamation cases for her remarks supporting pre-
marital sex. The court held that mere expression of an opinion that does not
incite public disorder or violence cannot be construed as defamation. This case
reaffirmed the importance of freedom of speech and expression in public
discourse.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, defamation laws serve as a vital mechanism for safeguarding
individual reputation and dignity in society. They provide recourse against false
and damaging statements that can harm a person's standing in the community or
2
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 April, 2003
3
S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr on 28 April, 2010
their professional and personal relationships. However, the application of
defamation laws must be balanced with the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression.

The evolving jurisprudence surrounding defamation reflects the complexities

inherent in balancing these competing interests. Courts have grappled with
issues such as the scope of permissible criticism, the public interest in
disclosing information, and the appropriate remedies for defamation. Landmark
cases have established important principles, including the recognition of the
right to reputation as an essential component of individual rights and the
acknowledgment of legitimate criticism and debate in matters of public concern.

Moreover, the emergence of digital communication platforms has presented new

challenges for defamation law, requiring adaptation to the realities of online
discourse and the proliferation of information across digital networks.

In navigating these complexities, it is essential for defamation laws to uphold

the principles of fairness, proportionality, and accountability. Clear legal
standards and procedural safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse and ensure
that defamation claims are adjudicated fairly and impartially.

Ultimately, defamation laws play a critical role in maintaining social order and
protecting individual dignity, but their application must be guided by a
commitment to upholding the principles of free speech and the public interest.