Overview: Defamation | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Defamation acts as a check on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression(Article 19) by ensuring that individuals do not harm each other's reputations or create false perceptions in the public eye.
• For instance, if two political candidates, Meera and Subodh, are running for election and Subodh falsely accuses Meera of corruption, it could significantly damage her reputation and chances of winning.
• To protect against such harmful statements, the Indian Penal Code includes provisions on defamation in Sections 499 to 502. This article aims to explain these provisions in detail.

Analysis of the Offence of Defamation

Understanding Defamation as per Section 499 of IPC

• Defamation involves harming someone's reputation through spoken or written words, signs, or gestures with the intent to damage that person's standing.
• The person making the statement must know or have reason to believe that it will harm the other person's reputation.

Key Concepts in Defamation

• Reputation: To sue for defamation, it must be proven that actual harm has occurred to the person's reputation. Simply making a statement or gesture is not sufficient unless it damages the person's standing.
• Publication: For defamation to be established, the defamatory words must have been published, meaning they reached a third party. This can be through reading, hearing, or seeing the words.

Forms of Defamation: Libel vs. Slander

• Libel: Defamation in a permanent form such as writing, printing, or images.
• Slander: Defamation in an impermanent form such as spoken words, gestures, or representations.

D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata Case

• A newspaper falsely reported that Manjulata, a 17-year-old from a respected family, eloped with a nearby boy, damaging her reputation.
• The court ruled in favor of the defendant, awarding Rs. 10,000 for defamation due to the false and irresponsible publication.

Forms of Publication

Defamation can occur in various forms of publication. Let's explore them.

Direct Communication to the Defamed

• If defamation is made directly to the individual being defamed and is not heard by anyone else, it does not constitute defamation. It is essential that a third party hears the defamatory statement, as this is what damages the reputation of the defamed party.

Publication by Repetition

• There is a limited time frame within which to sue for defamation, specifically one year from the date of the defamatory act.
• For a single publication, an action for libel can be initiated. However, for repetitive or multiple publications, an action can be brought forth each time the libel is published.
• The Limitation Act, 1968, establishes a one-year limitation period for internet-based libel. With each publication on the internet, this limitation period is renewed.

Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir

• This case was decided in 2013 by the Delhi High Court.
• The court ruled to set aside the multiple publication rule on the internet and to follow the single publication rule instead.

Printed Matters: Liability of Editor and Others

Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code

• Section 501 addresses the printing of defamatory material.
• It states that anyone who prints or engraves a matter that they know or have reason to believe is defamatory, thereby damaging someone's reputation, can be held liable.
• The section aims to penalize those who print defamatory content and prescribes a punishment of up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

Section 502 of the Indian Penal Code

• Section 502 deals with the sale of defamatory printed content.
• It states that anyone who sells or offers to sell printed material containing defamatory matter, knowing or believing it to be so, can be punished.
• The punishment can include imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Both sections highlight that printing, selling, or offering to sell defamatory content is a crime and is punishable under the law.

Imputations Concerning 'Any Person'

• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the concept of 'imputation concerning any person.'
• An imputation generally refers to an accusation or claim that someone has done something wrong.
• The phrase 'concerning any person' means that the defamation must be specific enough to identify the person being defamed.
• If the defamatory statement is published to others, it should be clear to a third party who is being defamed.

Intention to Injure

• In a defamation case, it is crucial to establish that there was an intention to harm the reputation of the individual concerned.
• This involves proving that the person had knowledge or reason to believe that their actions would definitely lead to the defamation of another person's character.
• The concept of mens rea, or guilty mind, comes into play here, indicating that the person intended to damage the reputation of the other party.
• To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the defendant must demonstrate that their actions were driven by honest intentions, without any malice, and that any harm caused was merely an honest mistake.

Analysis of Provisions of Sections 499 and 500, IPC

Let's delve into the provisions outlined in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding defamation.

Section 499: Definition and Exceptions of Defamation

• Section 499 provides a detailed definition of defamation along with various cases and exceptions.
• It includes a total of 10 exceptions related to the act of defamation.

Section 500: Punishment for Defamation

• Section 500 specifies the punishment for the act of defamation.

Explanation 1: Defamation of the Dead

• Defaming a deceased person through written, spoken, or visual means constitutes an act of defamation if it harms the reputation of the deceased as if they were alive.
• It also applies if the defamation harms the reputation of the deceased's family or close relatives.

Explanation 2: Defamation of a Company or Group

• Defamation aimed at a company, association, or group of people is actionable under Section 499.
• Companies and associations have the right to file defamation suits against individuals.

Case Study: Priya Parameshwaran Pillai v. Union of India and Ors.

• In this case, Priya, an activist, wrote a blog criticizing the environmental impact of a power project by the Essar group.
• The Essar group filed a defamation suit against her.
• Priya argued that private companies should not have the right to sue for defamation, but the court dismissed her argument.
• This case is linked to the earlier case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India.

Case Study: Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India

• In 2014, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy accused Ms. Jayalalithaa of corruption.
• Ms. Jayalalithaa filed defamation charges against Dr. Swamy.
• Dr. Swamy challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.
• The court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation and stated that these sections impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Explanation 3: Defamation by Innuendo

• Defamation by innuendo involves making negative statements in a sarcastic manner that may seem positive on the surface.
• Under Section 499, this form of defamation is considered criminal.
• Illustration: For example, if A points to C and says, 'C is very fair-minded, I haven't seen him discriminate against G,' A is actually implying that C is discriminatory.

Explanation 4: Harming Reputation

• Defamation harms a person's reputation by injuring their moral, intellectual character, or lowering their credit.
• It also harms reputation by damaging a person's character based on their caste or profession.
• Acts that lead others to believe that a person's body is in a detestable condition also constitute defamation.

Exceptions Provided in Section 499

There are ten exceptions in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding defamation. Let's explore them one by one.

First Exception: Truth for Public Good

• This exception states that if information is true and serves the public good, it is not considered defamation.
• Two key points to note:
• The information must be true.
• The information should benefit the public.
• Additionally, it is necessary to publish such information.

Second Exception: Fair Criticism of Public Servants

• This exception allows for the criticism of a public servant's conduct or character while performing their public duties.
• Illustration: If someone criticizes a public officer for being ineffective at their job, it would not be considered defamation under this exception.
• Good Faith: It is important that such comments are made in good faith. If they are made with malice or bad intentions, they may be deemed defamatory.
• Fair and Honest Opinion: Any criticism of a public servant's conduct or character must be fair and honest. Otherwise, it could lead to a defamation claim.

Third Exception: Fair Comment on Public Conduct of Public Figures

• This exception applies when someone expresses views or opinions about the conduct of a person performing public functions.
• Such views and opinions must be expressed in good faith and honesty. If not, it could be considered defamation.
• Illustration: If there is a public meeting requiring public support or if someone files a petition against government actions, expressing opinions about the involved individuals would fall under this exception.

Rights of the Press: Summary of Principles Governing Rights of Press and Media

• The media is granted freedom through Article 19, which ensures the right to freedom of speech and expression. This provision empowers the media to act as a watchdog for the public
• It is crucial for the media to generate a positive impact on the public and avoid any negative perceptions arising from the news they disseminate.
• The owner,editor, and publisher are all accountable if any defamatory news is published and disseminated to third parties.
• Defaming in this context refers to news that tarnishes someone's reputation or character.

Google India Pvt Ltd. v. Visakha Industries

• An article titled "Poisoning the system: Hindustan Times" mentioned various famous politicians in connection with Visakha Industries, despite the lack of relevance.
• The court ruled that this did not constitute defamation, highlighting the distinction between online publications and print media.

Fourth Exception: Report of Proceedings of Courts of Justice

• Publishing reports of court proceedings or case outcomes does not amount to defamation.
• The publication must be true and relevant.

Fifth Exception: Comment on Cases

• Publishing information about the merits of a case or the conduct of a witness does not constitute defamation.
• Good faith is essential in this context.

Illustration

• If A accuses B of lying on the witness stand, it falls under this exception.
• However, if A claims B is a liar based on personal knowledge, it constitutes defamation.

Sixth Exception: Literary Criticism

• Expressing an opinion in good faith about an author’s performance or character does not amount to defamation if the author has submitted their work to public judgment.
• Examples include authors, actors, and performers who present their work for public evaluation.

Illustration

• If X criticizes Y's mindset, it falls under this exception.
• However, if X attacks Y's character based on personal knowledge, it constitutes defamation.

Seventh Exception: Censure by One in Authority

• Censure by someone in authority does not constitute defamation if the person applying the censure has lawful authority over the individual being censured.
• Illustration: When an employer censures an employee in good faith or a teacher reprimands a student in front of others in good faith.

Eighth Exception: Complaint to Authority

• Accusations made by a person with lawful authority against another individual do not amount to defamation.
• Illustration: If A accuses X before a judge in good faith or a warden accuses a hosteller to the dean of the college in good faith.

Kanwal Lal v. the State of Punjab

• In this case, for the defense to fall under exception 8, the publication must be made before a legal authority.
• The District Panchayat Officer or the Panchayat did not have lawful authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, as Panchayats only had jurisdiction.

Ninth Exception: Imputation for Protection of Interests

• Accusations or imputations made to protect one's interests do not constitute defamation.
• Illustration: If employee D reports on the conduct of employee Z in a monthly report, D falls under this exception.

Tenth Exception: Caution in Good Faith

• Cautions made for the benefit of an individual or for the public good do not amount to defamation.

On the Scope of Sections 499 and 500, IPC

Distinction between Libel of Court and Contempt of Court

• When a judge is personally defamed, they can sue the individual in their personal capacity, not as a judge.
• Contempt of Court involves actions that obstruct the administration of justice and show disrespect to the court.
• The Supreme Court and High Court can punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively.
• In the case of Perspective Publications v. the State of Maharashtra, a distinction between libel and contempt of court was emphasized.
• A test is used to determine whether an act constitutes disrespect to a judge or hampers the administration of law.

Whether accurate and true report of Assembly Proceedings published in newspapers would amount to Defamation

• According to Exception 4, true and accurate reports of court proceedings are not considered defamation.
• In the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala, it was determined that reports of Parliamentary proceedings do not fall under Exception 4.
• This was seen as discriminatory until Article 361A was added by the 44th Amendment Act in 1978.
• The Parliamentary Proceedings Act of 1977 provides legal protection for publications in newspapers or broadcasts of substantially true reports of Parliament proceedings.
• Such publications must be made in good faith and with the authority of both Houses of Parliament or the State Legislature.

Who Should Be Prosecuted for Making Defamatory Imputations in a Newspaper?

• In the context of a newspaper, there is a common misconception that only the editor is responsible for publishing defamatory content. However, the reality is that the owner, author, editor, and distributor can all be held liable for defamation. Vicarious liability may also apply, making the proprietor of the newspaper responsible for damages arising from the defamatory material.
• Narayan Singh v. Rajmal: In this case, the court ruled that the absent editor was not liable for the defamatory publication by the sub-editor, as there was no malintent on the editor's part.
• Mohammed Koya v. Muthukoya: The court determined that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only the editor is recognized as the legal entity responsible for published content in a newspaper.
• K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham & Ors: The publisher of a book accused of defamation argued that only the editor could be held liable under the Press and Registration of Books Act. The High Court and later the Supreme Court rejected this claim, establishing that the presumption of responsibility could also apply to others, not just the editor.
• The court's rationale is based on the presumption that the editor is responsible for checking and selecting published material. However, this presumption can be rebutted, and under the Press and Registration of Books Act, the same presumption can apply to others if proven.

Defamation of Wife by Husband

• According to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a husband and wife are considered as one entity, and private communications between them are privileged.
• In the case of T.J. Ponnen v. M.C Verghese, when a husband wrote a letter containing defamatory content to his wife, the court ruled that this fell under the provisions of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Seventh Exception: Censure by One in Authority

• If a person in a position of authority criticizes the conduct of another person, it does not constitute defamation, as long as the critic has lawful authority or authority based on a valid contract over the person being criticized.

Illustration

• An employer reprimanding an employee in good faith.
• A teacher, acting in good faith, criticizing a student's behavior in front of another student.

Eighth Exception: Complaint to Authority

• When a person with lawful authority accuses another person, it does not amount to defamation.

Illustration

• If A, in good faith, makes an accusation against X to a judge.
• If a warden accuses a hosteller, C, to the dean of the college in good faith.

Kanwal Lal v. the State of Punjab

• In this case, for the defense to fall under exception 8, the publication must be made before a legal authority.
• The District Panchayat Officer or the Panchayat did not have lawful authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, as Panchayats only had jurisdiction in specific matters.

Ninth Exception: Imputation for Protection of Interests

• Making accusations or imputations against another person to protect one's own interests does not constitute defamation.

Illustration

• If employee D is required to report on the conduct of employees in a sector and writes about the poor conduct of employee Z, D falls under this exception.

Tenth Exception: Caution in Good Faith

• Issuing a caution for the benefit of an individual or for the public good does not amount to defamation.

On the Scope of Sections 499 and 500, IPC

Libel of Court and Contempt of Court are two distinct legal concepts that pertain to the actions and statements made about the judiciary, but they differ in their focus and implications.

Libel of Court

• Libel of Court refers to the act of defaming a judge personally through false statements. If a judge is personally defamed by an individual, they have the right to sue the person in their personal capacity, not as a representative of the court.

Contempt of Court

• Contempt of Court involves actions that disrupt the administration of justice or show disrespect towards the court. Both the Supreme Court and High Court have the authority to punish individuals for contempt under Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution, respectively.

In the case of Perspective Publications v. the State of Maharashtra, the distinction between libel and Contempt of Court was emphasized. A test is required to determine whether an act constitutes disrespect towards the judge or hinders the due process of law.

Defamation in Published Reports of Assembly Proceedings

Introduction

• Defamation in the context of published reports, especially concerning Assembly Proceedings, is a nuanced issue. It revolves around the balance between the right to free speech and the protection of individual reputations.

Key Legal Provisions

• Exception 4 in defamation law suggests that true and accurate reports of court proceedings are not defamatory.
• The Parliamentary Proceedings Act of 1977 provides legal protection for publications of true reports of Parliament proceedings, given they are made in good faith.

Case Studies

• In the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala, it was determined that reports of Parliament proceedings do not fall under Exception 4, highlighting a legal discrepancy that was later addressed by the 44th Amendment in 1978.
• Legal protection for true reports of Assembly Proceedings was further reinforced by the introduction of Article 361A by the 44th Amendment Act in 1978.

Liability in Defamation Cases Involving Newspapers

• In cases of alleged defamation through newspapers, liability does not rest solely with the editor. The owner,author,editor, and distributor can all be held accountable.
• Vicarious liability can make the newspaper proprietor liable for damages arising from defamatory content.
• In the case of Narayan Singh v. Rajmal, liability was not attributed to the editor when the sub-editor published the defamatory content in the editor's absence.
• Mohammed Koya v. Muthukoya highlighted that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only the editor is recognized as the legal entity responsible for published content.
• K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham & Ors illustrated that the presumption of liability can extend beyond the editor under certain circumstances.

Defamation of Spouse

• Communication between spouses is considered privileged under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This means that defamatory statements made by one spouse to another in private are not actionable.
• In the case of T.J. Ponnen v. M.C Verghese, the court upheld this principle when a husband wrote a letter containing defamatory content about a third party to his wife. The court ruled that the communication was protected under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it was a private communication between spouses.

Conclusion

• The balance between individual rights and societal norms is crucial in defamation cases. While the right to free speech is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and can be limited to safeguard the reputation of individuals.
• Cases like Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy demonstrate the legal scrutiny involved in defamation claims and the protection of individual reputations against undue harm from public statements.
• The ongoing debates around press freedom and defamation laws indicate the need for clarity and fairness in legal provisions to avoid arbitrary outcomes.