Question Description
There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared
according to
the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam.
Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.Criminal defamation is nothing more than a tool of intimation buried in our statute books from the colonial times. The law gained more notoriety after the apex court ruled it to be constitutional and elevated the so-called right to reputation to the stature of a fundamental right. When courts (as Justice Dipak Mishra, in the Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, wrote) define reputation as “fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity,” do we need the state to protect it? Loss of reputation is not a crime against society. For a private wrong, loss of reputation, the law allows use of state machinery to impose criminal sanctions.Unfortunately, in our country civil defamation to compensate for loss of reputation is just an add-on to a criminal case that drags on for years. Here’s proof: Jay Amit Shah filed a criminal defamation case in an Ahmedabad court before filing a civil defamation suit seeking compensation. Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. This is highly unusual since defamation as a crime is almost nonexistent anywhere in the world. While civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation and depends on judge-made law, criminal law is in the Indian Penal Code (section 499 creates a criminal offence of defamation.In defamation, the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured the person’s reputation and were published. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true, or amounted to fair comment, or were uttered or stated in circumstances offering absolute or qualified privilege like Parliamentary or judicial proceedings.The essentials of defamation can be summed up as follows. The Statement must be published i.e. for defamation to occur, the statement should be communicated by the maker of the statement, to a third party either in a direct or implied manner. Implied publishing is when a person communicates material in such a way that a third party is bound to get access to the statement. The Statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by name, if he can still be individually recognised. The intention of the wrongdoer is also relevant i.e the person making the defamatory statement must know 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.Q. Which of the following is false?a)Truth is a defence to defamation.b)A person can be held liable for defamation even for general statements not referring to any specific identifiable person or class of persons or institution.c)The intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant in determining liability under defamation.d)Both (b) and (c).Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.