DEFAMATION

.
INTRODUCTION
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken , that harms a persons reputation
decreases the respect, regard or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging,
hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person is known as defamation.
Defamation is an injury to the standing of an individual. It is a wrong done by an individual to
another's standing by words, composed or spoken, sign or other noticeable portrayals.
Defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her
reputation.
It is a statement that injures someone’s reputation. Defamation is the act of saying false things in
order to make people have a bad opinion of someone. Defamation may be defined as a
communication to some person, other than the person defamed, of the matter which tends to
lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking persons or to deter them from associating or
dealing with him. Defamation is a wrong done by a person to another’s reputation by words,
written or spoken, sign or other visible representation.
CONTD.
In the words of Dr. Winfield “Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower
a person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society, generally or, which tends to
make them shun or avoid that person.”
Defamation is of two kinds Libel and Slander. If the statement is made in writing and published
in some permanent and visible form, then the defamation is called libel. Whereas, if the statement
is made by some spoken words then the defamation is called slander.
Defamation may be a civil charge or a criminal charge under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.

Section 499 Of IPC:- 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 to defame that person.
Section 500 of IPC:- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or both.
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL DEFAMATION
Criminal Defamation: Criminal defamation is the act of offending or defaming
a person by committing a crime or offence. For criminal defamations, you could
always get the liable person or party prosecuted. It is studied in IPC as a criminal
act.
Civil Defamation: Civil defamation involves no criminal offence, but on
account of this kind of defamation, you could sue the person to get a legal
compensation for your defamation. It is studied under law of torts i.e. as a civil
wrong.
KINDS OF DEFAMATION
Generally, there are two kinds of defamation: Libel and Slander.
1. Libel
It refers to defamation made in some permanent form, for example in composed, printed, or
comparable way. In this manner, it very well may be said that it will remain as long as the
sculpture or picture remains on.
Under English law, the distinction between libel and slander is material for two reasons:
Under Criminal law, only libel has been recognized as an offence. Slander is no offence.
 Under the law of torts, slander is actionable, save in exceptional cases, only on proof of special
damage. Libel is always actionable per se, i.e., without the proof of any damage.
Libel is representation made in some permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy2 or
statute..
CONTD.
Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures Ltd, (1934) 50 T.L.R. 581
The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character
Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested
that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, she had been seduced by
Rasputin. The defendant contended that if the film indicated any relations between Rasputin
and ‘Natasha’ it indicated a rape of Natasha and not a seduction.
Held- In a cinema film, not only the photographic part of it is considered to be libel but
also the speech which synchronizes with it also.
Slesser LJ said that defamation could include words which cause a person to be shunned or
avoided: ‘not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or
contempt by reason of some moral discredit on [the plaintiff’s] part, but also if it tends to
make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without any moral discredit on [the
plaintiff’s] part. Thus she was awarded with damages.
CONTD .
Indian Law : It has been noted above that under English criminal law, a distinction is made
between libel and slander. There, libel is a crime but slander is not. Slander is only a civil
wrong in England. Criminal law in India does not make any such distinction between libel
and slander. Both libel and slander are criminal offences under Section 499, I.P.C. It has also
been noted above that though libel and slander both are considered as civil wrongs, but there
is a distinction between the two under English Law.
Libel is actionable per se, but in case of slander, except in certain cases, proof of special
damage is required. There has been a controversy whether, slander like libel, is actionable
per se in India, or special damage is required to be proved, as in England. The weight of the
authorities1 is for discarding between libel and slander in India and making slander and libel
both actionable per se.
CONTD.
2. Slander
It refers to the form of defamation that is transient in nature, for example, oral criticism i.e defamation.
Subsequently, for this situation, the impact of criticism is considered to remain alive for the time frame of
remark or activity.
Slander is a common wrong, and exceptional harm must be demonstrated in instances of defamation.
Slander can likewise occur such that will intently address defamation.
For instance, when you direct some abusive remarks to your representative who thusly types it's anything
but a letterhead the correspondence that will occur for the third individual through the discourse.
In D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata, A.I.R. 1997 Raj. 170.
The plaintiff – respondent Manjulata about 17 years of age belonged to a distinguished family and studied
B.A. There was a publication of a news item in a local daily Dainik Navjyoti that last night she ran away
with a boy named Kamlesh; but she had gone to attend night classes. The news item was untrue and
negligently published with utter irresponsibility. She was shocked and ridiculed by others. It was held that
the action was defamatory and she was entitled with the damages of Rs 10000/- by way of general
damages.
LIBLE SLANDER

It is addressed to the eyes. It is addressed to the ears.

The defamatory statement is made in some The defamatory statement is made by spoken
permanent and visible form, such as writing, words or some other transitory form, whether
printing, pictures and effigies. visible or audible, such as gestures, hissing or
such other things.

t is an actionable tort as well as a criminal It is a civil injury only and not a criminal
offence. offence except in certain cases.

It is actionable per se (in itself) i.e., without It is actionable only on proof of actual
proof of actual damage. damage.
ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION
There are three main essentials of Defamation:
1. The statement must be published:
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the
person defamed, and unless mat is done, no civil action for defamation lies.4
Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation is injury to the
reputation and reputation consists in the estimation in which others hold him and not a
man's own opinion of himself. Dictating a letter to one's typist is enough publication.
In the case of Mahendra Ram v. Hamandan Prasad, A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 445 the
respondent had sent a letter in Urdu regardless of knowing the way that the offended
party couldn't understand Urdu and the letter would need to be in the long run perused
by another person or an outsider. The respondent was expected to take responsibility for
the offense of defamation.
CONTD.
If a defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there is a
publication. When the defamatory matter is contained in a postcard or a telegram, the
defendant is liable even without a proof that somebody else read it, because a telegram is
read by the post office officials who transmit and receive it, and there is a high
probability of the postcard being read by someone. If, however, the matter contained in
the postcard could not be understood as defamatory by a stranger unacquainted with
certain circumstances not mentioned in the postcard, there was no publication to the
postman or other persons through whose hands the postcard passed. Similar would be
the position 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.
In the eyes of law, husband and wife are one person and the communication of a
defamatory matter from the husband to the wife or vice versa is no publication .
CONTD.
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of
right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that
person.
The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen. A man of fair average intelligence,
and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or approved by the fair
minded members of the society generally.
Ram Jethmalai v. Subramaniam Swamy, A.I.R. 2006 Del. 300- An inquiry commission was
setup for examining the facts and circumstances relating to assassination of late Shri Rajiv
Gandhi. The defendant, at a press conference alleged that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
had prior information that LTTE cadre would make an assassination bid on the life of Rajiv
Gandhi. The plaintiff was engaged as a sr. counsel to the then CM of TN. In discharge of his
professional duties, the plaintiff cross examined the defendant. During the proceeding, the
defendant in the written conclusive submission, alleged that the plaintiff had been receiving
money from LTTE, a banned organization. The statement by defendant was ex facie defamatory.
CONTD .
In Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai,1969- It has been held that the imputation by tge defendant that
the plaintiff, a widow of 45 year age, is a keep of the maternal uncle of the plaintiff’s daughter-
in-law, is not a mere vulgar abuse but a definite imputation upon her chastity and thus constitutes
defamation.
In South Indian Railway Co. v. Ramakrishna, I.L.R. (1890) 13 Mad. 34
A ticket checker of railway asking for the identity proof and other documents as a part of his duty
is no defamation, as he has not published any defamatory statement.
THE INNUENDO –
Sometimes the statement may be prima facie innocent but because of some latent or secondary
meaning may be considered to be defamatory. When the natural and ordinary meaning is not
defamatory but the plaintiff wants to bring an action of defamation, he must prove the latent or
secondary meaning i.e., Innuendo which makes the statement defamatory. for e.g., the statement
that a lady has given birth to a child is defamatory when the lady is unmarried.
CONTD.
Intention to defame is not necessary-
In Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., (1929) 2 K.B. 331- Mr. Cassidy (also known as
Mr. Corrigan) was married to a lady who called herself Mrs. Cassidy or Mrs. Corrigan. She was
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 newspapers a photograph of Mr.
Corrigan and Miss 'X', with the following words underneath : "Mr. M. Corrigan, the race horse
owner, and Miss 'X', whose engagement has been announced." Mrs. Corrigan sued the defendants
for libel alleging that the innuendo was that Mr. Corrigan was not her husband and he lived with
her in immoral cohabitation. Some female acquaintances 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 awarded damages. The Court of Appeal held that the innuendo
was established. Obvious innocence of the defendants was no defence. The defendants were held
liable.
In the Scottish case of Morrison v. Ritchie & Co., (1902) 4 F. 654 where damages were
recovered against the proprietors of a newspaper who in all innocence had announced in the paper
that a lady, who had in fact been married only a month, had given birth to twins.
CONTD.
2. The statement must refer to the plaintiff:
It ought to be demonstrated by the plaintiff that the assertion was focused on him. The expectation
of the litigants is unimportant.
The inquiry whether the slanderous words alluded to the offended party is dictated by a goals test
and the responsibility emerges if the words are truth be told, disparaging of the offended party,
regardless of whether there has been a goal to allude to the offended party or carelessness,
according to the reference to the offended party.
In the case of T.V. Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court expected the defendants to take
responsibility for distributing an assertion with no goal to stigmatize the litigants. The assertion
referenced that a specific individual conveying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been
captured for the offense of smuggling.
The offended party was likewise one of the individuals carrying on a comparable business, and
because of this assertion, his standing was additionally seriously damaged.
CONTD.
If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
In Newstead v., London Express Newspapers Ltd., (1939) 4 All E.R. 391
The defendants published an article stating that ‘Harold Newstead, a Camberwell man’ had
been convicted of bigamy. The story was true of Harold Newstead, a Camberwell barman.
The action for defamation was brought by another Harold Newstead, the barber. As the
words were considered to be understood as referring to the plaintiff, the defendants were
liable.
The Delhi HC in Harsh Mendiratta v. Maharaj Singh, 2002 Cr. L.J. 1894 said that an
action for defamation was maintainable only by the person who was defamed and not by his
friends or relatives.
CONTD.
Defamation of a class of persons
When the words refer to a group of individuals 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. Thus, "If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless
there was something to point to the particular individual.
In Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Raj at Kanti Bhadra, A.I.R. 1970 Cal. 216 it has been held that when
an editorial in a newspaper is defamatory of a spiritual head of a community, an individual of that
community does not have a right of action. Where the statement though generally referring to a
class can be reasonably considered to be referring to a particular plaintiff, his action will succeed.
In Fanu v. Malcolmson, (1848) 1 H.L. Cas. 637, an article published by the defendants, it was
mentioned that cruelty was practiced upon employees in some of the Irish factories. From the
article as a whole including a reference to Waterford itself, it was considered that the plaintiff's
Waterford factory was aimed at in the article and the plaintiff was, therefore, successful in his
action for defamation
CONTD.
3. The statement must be defamatory:
Defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff. Defamation is
the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking
members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. An
imputation which exposes one to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt, is defamatory.
The defamatory statement could be made in different ways. For instance, it may be oral, in
writing, printed or by the exhibition of a picture, statue or effigy or by some conduct.
In the case of Ram Jethmalai v. Subramanian Swamy court held Dr. Swamy to be at risk
for defaming Mr. Jethmalani by saying that he got cash from a prohibited association to
ensure the then CM of Tamil Nadu on account of the death of Rajiv Gandhi.
In another new instance of Arun Jaitley v Arvind Kejriwal, the court held the articulation
said by Arvind Kejriwal and his 5 different pioneers to be defamatory. Be that as it may, the
matter was at long last revealed after every one of the litigants apologized for their activities.
OTHER ESSENTIALS
•The intention of the wrongdoer- The person making the defamatory statement knows that there
are high chances of other people believing the statement to be true and it will result in causing
injury to the reputation of the person defamed.
•The Statement should be false- A defamatory statement should be false because the truth is a
defence to defamation. If the statement made is true then there is no defamation as the falsity of
the statement is an essential ingredient of defamation. The law does not punish anyone for
speaking the truth, even if it is ugly.
•The Statement should not be privileged- In some cases, the statements may be privileged i.e.
the person who has made the statement is protected from such liability.
•The third party believes the defamatory matter to be true- The other people of the society
believe that the defamatory matter said about the plaintiff is true.
•The Statement must cause injury- The statement made should harm or injure the plaintiff in
some way. For example, the plaintiff lost his job because of the statement made.
CONTD.
The Statement should be made- A statement can be made by words either spoken or intended
to be read, or by signs or by visible representations. For example, A is asked who stole B’s
diamond ring. A points to C, intending to cause everybody to believe that C stole the diamond
ring. This is defamation.
Publications by two or more persons- When two or more persons agree together to write or
utter defamatory words of another, and one of them writes or utters the words in the presence of
others, who have so agreed, all of them may be sued as a joint tortfeasor provided the defamatory
matter has been published to persons other than those who were acting together or the plaintiff.
Repetition of defamatory words- Generally, the person who first makes a defamatory statement
is not liable if the statement is republished by another person even though he expressly states that
he is reproducing what he has heard from some source. However, no person has the right to
repeat a slanderous statement without any justification. If a person who is aware that a
defamatory statement is false and still repeats or communicates it further, then he can also be
held liable for defamation.
CONTD.
Defamation by omission- There may be publication by omission. Failure by a defendant
authorized and able to remove defamatory matter which is the work of another is publication
by him. For example, if someone puts up a defamatory letter on the notice board of a club and
the person in charge has not removed it within a reasonable time, then he will be accountable.
Measures of Damages in Defamatory Publication- The Court must take the following
things into consideration while deciding the question of compensation in a defamatory
publication:
1.The conduct of the plaintiff.
2.His position and standing in society.
3.The nature of libel.
4.The absence or refusal of any retraction or apology of libel.
5.The whole conduct of the defendant from the date of publication of libel to the date of the
decree.
CONTD.
In Gorantla Venkateshwarlu v. B. Demudu, the respondent was a bank officer and was
sent on deputation to work as the Managing Director of Co-operative society. The appellant,
the President of Society sent a complaint to the Bank alleging that the respondent had illicit
connections with ladies which affected the image of the society during his tenure as the
Managing Director.
The respondent sent a reply denying the allegations made against him. The branch manager
of the bank conducted an inquiry and found out that the allegations were false and were
made only with a view to see that the respondent is not deputed to inspect the affairs of the
society.
The respondent filed a suit of defamation claiming damages of Rs. 20,000. The court held
that the allegations were per se defamatory and the appellant was liable to pay damages.
However, the court considered the fact that the allegations were made known only to staff
and the Bank and there was no wide publicity, so the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 5000 as
damages.
DEFENCES AGAINST DEFAMATION
The defences to an action for defamation are :
1. Justification or Truth: Truth is an absolute defence. If the statement made is authentic then it
does not constitute defamation. The burden of proof is on the defendant who is claiming the
defence. For instance, X makes a statement in an interview about Y indulging in gambling and Y
files a suit against him. If X is able to justify or prove it, then Y’s claim will be dismissed.
In Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath, the defendant was unable to prove the facts published by
him and therefore was held liable for defamation.
In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is complete defence. First
exception to sec. 499, I.P.C. requires that besides being true, the imputation must be shown to
have been made for public good. Under the Civil Law, merely proving that the statement was
true is a good defence. The reason for the 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." The defence is available even though the publication is made maliciously. If the
statement is substantially true but incorrect in respect of certain minor particulars, the defence
will still be available.
CONTD.
Under criminal law, merely proving that the statement was true is no defence but in civil law
merely showing truth is a good defence. In Alexander v. N.E. Rly, (1885) 6 B & S. 340 the
plaintiff had been convicted of riding a train from Leeds without having purchased a valid
ticket. The penalty was a fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he defaulted
on the fine. However, following the conviction, the defendant published a notice that the
plaintiff was convicted and issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by describing the penalty issued to
him inaccurately. The defendants argued that the conviction was described with substantial
and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as they differed in their literal meaning from the
words of the conviction were not libelous.
Judgment was given in favour of the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff
was sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned.
Blackburn J noted that the substance of the libel was true but the question was whether what
was stated inaccurately was the gist of the libel.
FAIR COMMENT
Nothing is defamatory which is a fair comment in the matter of public interest. The defendant
can avail this defence when he has merely made a fair comment in a matter of public interest.
This defence is based on public policy which gives every person the right to comment and
criticize without any malicious intention the work or activities of public offices, actors, authors
and athletes as well as those whose career is based on public attention. Any fair and honest
opinion on a matter of public interest is also protected even though it is not true. There is no
definition of a matter of public interest. Generally, a matter of public interest can is a subject
which invites public attention or is open to public discussion or criticism.
Making fair comment on matters of public interest is a defence to an action for defamation. For
this defence to be available, the following essentials are required :
It must be a Comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact;
The comment must be fair; and
The matter commented upon must be of public interest.
CONTD .
Comment- Comment means an expression of opinion on certain facts. It should be distinguished
from making a statement of fact. A fair comment is a defence by itself whereas if it is a statement
of fact that can be excused only if justification or privilege is proved regarding that. Whether a
statement is a fact or a comment on certain facts depends on the language used or the context in
which that is stated.
The comment must be fair- The comment cannot be fair when it is based upon untrue facts. A
comment based upon invented and untrue facts is not fair. Thus, in the review of a play when
immorality is imputed by suggesting that it contained an incident of adultery, when in fact there
was no such incident in the play, the plea of fair comment cannot be taken. Similarly, if in a
newspaper, there is publication of a statement of facts making serious allegations of dishonesty and
corruption against the plaintiff, and the defendant is unable to prove the truth of such facts, the plea
of fair comment, which is based upon those untrue facts, will also fail.
The matter commented upon must be of public interest- Administration of Govt. departments,
public companies, courts, conduct of public men like ministers or officers of State, public
institutions and local authorities, public meetings, pictures, theatres, public entertainments,
textbooks, novels, etc. are considered to be matters of public interest
PRIVILEGE
There are certain occasions when the law recognizes that the right of free speech outweighs the
plaintiff's right to reputation : the law treats such occasions to be "privileged" and a defamatory
statement made on such occasions is not actionable. Privilege is of two kinds : 'Absolute' privilege
and 'Qualified' privilege.
Absolute Privilege
It gives the person an absolute right to make the statement even if it is defamatory, the person is
immune from liability arising out of defamation lawsuit. Generally, absolute privilege exempts
defamatory statements made:
1.during judicial proceedings,
2.by government officials,
3.by legislators during debates in the parliament,
4.during political speeches in the parliamentary proceedings and,
5.communication between spouses.
CONTD.
In matters of absolute privilege, no action lies for the 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 the freedom of
speech.
For example, X is a member of Parliament and he gives a speech in the parliamentary
proceedings which defames Y. Here X is protected by absolute privilege. In the case
of T.J. Ponnen v. M..C. Verghese, the court held that a letter sent by a husband to his
wife which contains defamatory about the father-in-law does not a case of defamation. It
is a privileged communication between the spouses as per Section 122 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. In Chatterton v. Secretary of State for India, it was held that the
letters from the Secretary of State of India to his Parliamentary Under-Secretary
providing the materials for the answer to a parliamentary question was absolutely
privileged.
CONTD.
Parliamentary privilege in the Indian Constitution
Article 105 and 194 of the Indian constitution gives certain rights, immunity to the members of the
Houses of Parliament. The members of the Parliament have been vested with the freedom of speech.
This freedom is different from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a), as
the freedom in Art. 105 and 194 are specifically for the members of the Parliament and is subject to
rules and orders which regulate the parliamentary proceedings. Art. 19(1)(a) does not protect an
individual absolutely for what he says and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2). The
term freedom of speech in Art. 105 states that a member of Parliament shall not be liable to any
proceedings, civil and criminal, in any court for the statements made in debates in the Parliament. The
second clause of Art. 105 confers immunity, inter alia, in respect of anything said in Parliament the
word anything is of the widest import and is equivalent to everything. The only limitation is that the
words must be spoken during the sitting of the Parliament. This freedom is given even to non-members
like the Attorney General of India so that every member can participate freely in the debates and
discussions without any fear.
In P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (JMM Bribery Case), the apex court held that the privilege in Art.
105(2) which gives immunity from court proceedings extends even to taking of bribes by the members
of Parliament for the purpose of voting in a particular manner in Parliament.
CONTD.
•Qualified Privilege
For such a defence to be available, it is further necessary that there must be an occasion
for making the statement. Unlike the defence of absolute privilege, in this case it is
necessary that the statement must have been made without malice. When a person
making the statement has a legal, social or moral duty to make it and the listener has an
interest in it, then the defence of qualified privilege is allowed. To avail this defence the
defendant has to prove the following :
(1) The statement was made on a privileged occasion, i.e., it was in discharge of duty or
protection of an interest; or it is a fair report of parliamentary, judicial or other public
proceedings.
(2) The statement was made without any malice.
CONTD .
Statements 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 duty, legal, social or moral to make such a statement or, existence of some
interest for the protection of which the statement is made.
The statement should be without malice- In the matters of qualified privilege, the exemption
from liability for making defamatory statement is granted if the statement was made without malice.
The presence of malice destroys this defence. The malice in relation to qualified privilege means an
evil motive.
Lord Diplock explained the malice needed to destroy the defence of qualified privilege in the
following words-
 Broadly speaking, it means malice in the popular sense of desire to injure the person who is
defamed and this is generally the motive which the plaintiff sets out to prove. But to destroy the
privilege, the desire to injure must be the dominant motive for the defamatory publication :
knowledge that it will have that effect is not enough if the defendant is nevertheless acting in
accordance with a sense of duty or in bona fide protection of his own legitimate interests.
Absolute Privilege Qualified Privilege

The defendant can avail this defence even The defendant can avail this defence when he
when he has made the false and defamatory made the false and defamatory statement
statement deliberately and maliciously. deliberately, but without malice.

It can be used as a defence in the

It can be used as a defence in the communications made in the course of legal,
Parliamentary, judicial, naval, military or State social or moral duty, for self- protection, for
proceedings. protection of common interest, for the public
good.
CONTD.
•Statement of Opinion
If the statement made is an opinion and not a statement of fact, then it cannot be
defamatory. For example, if a person says that he finds an actor ugly, the statement is
just an opinion. However, if he says that the actor is a drug addict or has had multiple
affairs, then it will be a defamatory statement. If this statement results into the actor
losing work or his job and the statement made are false, then there will be a case for
defamation.
•Consent
If the plaintiff consents to the statement made, then there is no defamation. The consent
of the plaintiff gives absolute privilege to the publisher, it is immaterial whether the
plaintiff knew that the information approved for publication was defamatory or not.
Consent may be given by words or actions, including inaction. If the consent is obtained
fraudulently or from a person of unsound mind then it will be invalid.
CONTD.
•Censure passed in good faith by the person having lawful authority
It is not defamation of a person having over another authority either conferred by law or arising
out of the lawful contract made with another to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of
that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. For instance, a judge censuring the
conduct of a witness or a banker censuring the cashier of his bank or, an engineer submits a
report to the municipality that the contractor had taken away the stock of metal. If the engineer
has made the report in good faith, then he will not be liable for defamation.
•The accusation made in good faith to the authorized person
An accusation made in good faith against a person who has lawful authority over that person is
not defamation. It is not necessary for the person making allegations to prove that his allegations
were true but he must prove that there were reasonable grounds for him to believe in the
allegation. If a person signs a petition to the chairman of Lucknow Development Authority
against defective construction of houses, along with several other residents of the locality, he can
say to have acted in good faith.
Defamation as a Tort Defamation as a crime

It is a criminal offence, which is bailable, non-

It is a civil wrong.
cognizable and compoundable.
It is based on tort law- an area of law which has no It has been defined as an offence under Section
statutes to define wrongs and relies completely on 499 and the punishment for the same is given in
case laws to define wrongs. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It provides redressal to the plaintiff by awarding
It seeks to punish the offender and send a message
damages in the form of monetary compensation
to the society not to commit such an offence.
from the accused.
The offence of defamation has to be established
Damages are awarded on the basis of probabilities.
beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is generally a slow process to seek relief in The plaintiff can move to criminal court and ask
India. the offender to take cognizance of his complaint.
A person found guilty can be penalized only by A person found guilty can be punished with
making him pay damages. imprisonment up to two years or fine or with both.
LANDMARK CASES ON DEFAMATION:
G Narasimhan v. TV Chokkappa- In this case, the Apex court saw that a defamatory assertion
coordinated towards an affiliation or an organization will likewise cover the assortment of
people. In any case, the Hon'ble Court observed: "Such assortment of the individual should be a
recognizable body so it is feasible to say that with definiteness that a gathering of specific people,
as recognized from the remainder of the local area, was maligned. Thusly, for the situation
where clarification was turned to the character of the organization or the affiliation or the
assortment of people should be set up to be relatable to the disparaging words or ascriptions.
Where composing denounces against humanity as a rule or a specific request of men it is no
criticism. It should plunge to points of interest and people to make it defamation."
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India the petitioners challenged the validity of Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act (ITA) contending that it was not a reasonable restriction on the
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They
argued that the impugned section was unconstitutional because it provided protection against
annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, or criminal intimidation which is not covered in Art.
19(2). The court found section 66A of (ITA) to be vague and invalidated it on the ground of
being violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
CONTD .
In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India a petition regarding the
decriminalization of defamation was filed. The petition challenged the constitutional validity
of Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an unreasonable restriction on the
freedom of speech and expression.
The apex court held that criminal defamation under Section 499 and 500 did not violate Art.
19(1)(a) as it is a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2). The term ‘defamation’ in Art. 19(2)
includes both civil and criminal defamation. Section 499 and 500 IPC was held to be non-
discriminatory and non-arbitrary and not violative of the right to equality guaranteed under
Art. 14 of the Constitution.
While in a democracy an individual has a right to criticize and dissent, but his right under
Art. 19(1)(a) is not absolute and he cannot defame another person as that would offend the
victim’s fundamental right to reputation which is an integral part of Art. 21 of the
Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The defamation law serves the purpose of protecting people from having their reputation
injured resulting from false statements made against them. However, it is still in
accordance with the right to freedom of speech and expression, as people can make true
statements and give their opinions. This area of law seeks to protect a person’s reputation
from being hurt by preventing unfair speech. The apex court has stated in various cases
that the ambit of freedom of speech and expression is “sacrosanct” but is not “absolute”.
It also said that the right to life under Art. 21 includes the right to reputation of a person
and it cannot be violated at the cost of the freedom of speech of another.