Defamation

 Defamation is a legal term that refers to any statement or communication

that harms the reputation of a person, business, or organization. It is a
common type of tort law that protects individuals from false or harmful
statements that can cause them to suffer economic or reputational damages.

 Defamation can be divided into two categories: libel and slander. Libel is a
written or published defamatory statement, while slander is an oral
defamatory statement.
 In order for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must meet several
requirements.

1. The statement must be false.

2. It must be communicated to a third party. i.e. someone other than the party
that made the statement and the party that the statement was about.

3. It must harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant must have either known or should have known that the
statement was false or defamatory.
Essential Elements of Defamation

 There are several key elements that must be present in order for a plaintiff to successfully bring a
defamation claim. These elements include

• The statement must be false: The plaintiff must prove that the statement made about them is false. If the
statement is true, then it cannot be defamatory

• The statement must be communicated to a third party: The plaintiff must prove that the defamatory
statement was communicated to at least one other person, either orally or in writing.

• The statement must harm the reputation of the plaintiff: The plaintiff must prove that the defamatory
statement caused them to suffer harm to their reputation, either by damaging their standing in the
community, causing them to lose business or employment opportunities, or otherwise causing them to suffer
emotional distress.

• The statement must be made with fault or negligence: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have
known that the statement was false or defamatory, and that they made the statement with reckless disregard for the
truth.
 If a plaintiff can prove all of these elements, then they may be entitled to
damages for the harm caused by the defamatory statement. These damages
can include compensation for lost wages, damage to reputation, and
emotional distress.

 While in some cases, proving that the defendant was at fault is easier, such as
if the defendant knew that the statement was false and made it anyway. In
other cases, it may be more difficult to prove fault, particularly if the
defendant made the statement based on a good-faith belief that it was true.
 CIVIL DEFAMATION
INGREDIENTS
 False and defamatory Statement which tends to injure the reputation of a person/plaintiff.
 Intention is not important;
 Without consent of the alleged person or the plaintiff
 Statement must be published i.e., communicated to a third party.
Eg., if the statement is only for the plaintiff, then it cannot be defamation because there is no
loss of reputation.
If the statement was written in a letter and sent to be read by the plaintiff, and it was read by
his assistant, it is not defamation.
 CIVIL DEFAMATION
INGREDIENTS

 Statement enough in the eyes of normal people;

✓ if the normal people in the society finds a statement defamatory, it is

defamation.

 Statement must be directed towards a particular person or class of persons.

Exception: 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.
 TEST FOR DEFAMATION
 In the eyes of common man or the right minded people in the
society, and their comprehension of the matter.

✓ For eg,. Calling someone a sexual predator publicly without any

cause.

 The statement must be a specific in nature, and not general.

✓ For eg,. Calling politicians in general corrupt.

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

 Mentioned under Section 499, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

 Since it is criminal defamation, the statement must be made with

a malice intent, or atleast with the knowledge that the
publication of a particular statement will lead to defamation.

 It may amount to defamation if anything is imputed against a

deceased person, if such imputation would harm the reputation
had the person been alive.
 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

 Section 500 of the IPC provides for punishment for criminal

defamation which may extend to two years along with fine.

 Underlying idea behind the laws of defamation is that reputation

of a person is an asset that no one wants to part with and
everyone wants to enjoy in the society. If anyone tries to rupture
it, he/she shall face consequences.
 CYBER DEFAMATION

 Very common these days.

 Cyber laws are extremely ambiguous in India. The infrastructure

is bad.

 In the famous case of Shreya Singhal v. UOI, Section 66-A of the

IT Act was struck down due to ambiguity. It stated that sending
any message through a computer or a communication device
would be an offence. Gives unfettered power to the Govt.
 DEFENCES
 Truth – to be proven by the defendant.

 Fair comment

✓ An expression of opinion rather than an assertion of a fact.

✓ Eg., A says of a book published by Z—"Z's book is foolish : Z must be a weak man. Z's
book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind." These are only comments based
on Z's book and A will be protected if he has said that in good faith.

✓ But if A says—"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a
weak man and a libertine.“ It is not a comment on Z's book but is rather a statement
of fact, and the defence of fair comment cannot be pleaded in such a case.

✓ Thus, fair comment is seen in context of the statement.

 There are also some defenses that defendants can use to protect themselves
against defamation claims. One of the most common defenses is truth: if the
defendant can prove that the statement was true, then they cannot be held
liable for defamation. Other defenses include privilege, which allows
individuals to make statements without fear of liability in certain contexts,
such as in court proceedings or legislative debates. Privilege allows
individuals to make statements without fear of liability in certain contexts,
such as in court proceedings or legislative debate
 DEFENCES
 Judicial Proceedings: No action for libel or slander lies, whether against judges,
counsels, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course of any
proceedings before any court recognized by law, even though the words written or
spoken were written or spoken maliciously, without any justification or excuse, and
from personal ill will and anger against the person defamed. However, it should be
relevant to the case otherwise a situation like Ram Jethamalani v. Subramaniam
Swamy may arise.

 State Communications: A statement made by one officer of the State to another in the
course of official duty is absolutely privileged for reasons of public policy. Such
privilege also extends to reports made in the course of military and naval duties.
 DEFENCES

 The statement must 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.
 CASE STUDY

MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani

 Me too movement – Priya Ramani accused MJ Akbar of sexual harassment-

Act committed in 1990s – She posted in on Twitter – MJ Akbar filed a criminal
defamation suit against her.

 Important fact: After she tweeted about the incident, numerous other women
tweeted about the same man. A Delhi court acquitted Priya Ramani of
defamation charges.
 Cases on Defamation

 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that truth is a defense against
defamation claims and that public figures have a higher burden of proof to prove that a statement is
defamatory.

 Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy: The Delhi High Court held that opinions are protected under
the right to free speech and expression and cannot be considered defamatory.

 Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd: Mr. Cassidy didn’t share a house with his wife but he visited
her occasionally. The newspaper published his picture stating that his engagement had been fixed with
a certain woman. This was held to be defamatory as it reflected poorly on Mr. Cassidy’s wife by
insinuating that she was perhaps his mistress. The Court held that the innuendo had been established
and the innocence of the defendant was not a valid defence.

 Dixon v. Holden: Defamation, in this case, was defined as an injury to a man’s reputation. The Court
stated that, “A man’s reputation is his property, and if, possible, more valuable, than other property”.
 Trespass

 Trespass generally refers to entering someone’s property without permission

of the owner or in-charge of the property. This is specifically referred to as
‘trespass to land’ because assault and battery is also called ‘trespass to body’.
This is because the word trespass has a wider connotation which refers to at
least two types of torts.
 There are two elements to commission of the tort of trespass

 1. Entering into someone’s land or property

 2. Without the owner’s permission

 Trespass follows from the right of the owner of a property to enjoy their property quietly
and peacefully. Trespass violates this legal right. If a person withdraws their permission
to be on the land, the unlawful presence of a person becomes trespass. This is termed as
trespass ab initio, which means that trespass would be considered to have taken place
from the very beginning of the trespasser’s presence on the land.

 Remedies against the tort of trespass include a suit for recovery of the land,
compensation and suit for mesne profit. Mesne profits are compensation for loss of the
profit that the owner of the property receives from it.
 Trespass

i. Tort of Trespass does not require actual Damage:

In order to prove a tort of trespass the plaintiff does not have to show that he suffered damage.
The mere fact of trespass is enough.

ii. Possession matters not ownership: Trespass is a wrong against possession of land or a good.
Thus, a landlord can be held liable for trespass if enters the tenant's premises without lawful
justification. Of course, if you have permission to enter the land either in the form of an invitation
or a license, then you are not committing trespass.
 Trespass
 iii. Role of Intent: The intent need not be required to commit a trespass, but merely to go to a specific
geographic place.

o Illustration –

o If a person walking in a public park errantly leaves the park and enters private property, he is liable for
trespass, even though they did not know that they had entered private land. However, a person who ends
up on land where he did not intend to go, is not liable for trespass.

o A person walking in a public park who slips and rolls down a hill will not be liable for trespass just
because the bottom of the hill is on private land.

 iv. Physical invasion: The trespasser need not enter the land in person. Throwing any physical object
onto the land of another - a rock, a cloud of dirt, a bucket of water - is a trespass.

o Illustration: If Joey and Rachel are standing next to Monica's land, and Joey pushes Rachel onto the is entering it
himself, it is Joey (and not Rachel, who did not intend to enter the space) when not for the trespass to Monica's land.
 Trespass to Land

 Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without lawful
justification.

 In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some
tangible object.

 Eg., To throw stones upon one's neighbour's premises is a wrong of trespass.

 Trespass is a wrong against possession rather than ownership. Therefore, a

person in actual possession can bring an action even though, against the true
owner, his possession was wrongful
 Trespass to Land
 Trespass is actionable per se and the plaintiff need not prove any damage for
an action of trespass.

 "Every invasion of property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass."

 Neither use of force nor showing any unlawful intention on the part of the
defendant are required.

 Even an honest mistake on the part of the defendant may be no excuse and a
person may be liable for the trespass when he enters upon the land of another
person honestly believing it to be his own.
 Trespass to Land
Trespass ab-initio:

 When a person enters certain premises under the authority of some law and
after having entered there, abuses that authority by committing some wrongful
act there, he will be considered to be a trespasser ab initio to that property.

 Eg., Refusing to pay after eating in a restaurant.

 Remedies
1. Use of Reasonable force:

 If a person's possession had been disturbed by a trespasser, he has a right to use

reasonable force to get a trespass vacated.

 A person, who being thus entitled to the immediate possession, uses reasonable force
and regains the possession himself, cannot be sued for a trespass.
 Remedies
2. Right of ejectment

 Section 6 of the Special Relief Act, 1963.

 If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than
in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit recover
possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such a suit.

 Basically, a person may be removed by a court order.

 Remedies
3. Mesne Profit

 Apart from the right of recovery of land by getting the trespasser ejected, a person who
was wrongfully dispossessed of his land, compensation in form of money can also be
sought for the damage suffered during the time of dispossession.
 Trespass to Goods
 It consists in direct physical interference with the goods which are in the
plaintiff's possession, without any lawful justification.

 It may take numerous forms, such as throwing of stones on a car, shooting

birds, beating animals or infecting them with disease or chasing animals to
make them run away from their owner's possession.
 Trespass to Goods
Detinue

 When, the defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods belonging to the plaintiff and
refuses to deliver the same on lawful demands, the plaintiff can recover the same by
bringing an action for detinue.

Conversion

 Conversion consists in wilfully and without any justification dealing with the goods in
such a manner that another person, who is entitled to immediate use and possession of
the same, is deprived of that.

 It is dealing with the goods in a manner which is inconsistent with the right of the
owner. The same must have been done with an intention on the part of the defendant to
deal with the goods in such a way that amounts to denial of plaintiff's right to it.
 Trespass to Goods
 In Richardson v. Atkinson, the defendant drew out some wine out of the
plaintiff's cask and mixed water with the remainder to make good the
deficiency. He was held liable for the conversion of the whole cask as he had
converted part of the contents by taking them away and the remaining part by
destroying their identity.
 Trespass
Trespass to persons

1. Battery

The wrong of battery consists in intentional application of force to another person

without any lawful justification. Its essential requirements are :

(i) There should be use of force;

(ii) The same should be, without any lawful justification.

 Even though the force used is very trivial and does not cause any harm, the wrong
is still constituted. Physical hurt need not be there. Least touching of another in
anger is a battery.
 Trespass

Trespass to persons

2. Assault

 Assault is an act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable apprehension
of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant.

 Pointing a loaded pistol at another is an assault. If the pistol is not loaded, then even it
may be an assault, if pointed at such a distance that, if loaded, it may cause injury.
 Trespass

Trespass to persons

3. False Imprisonment

 False imprisonment consists in the imposition of a total restraint for some period,
however short, upon the liberty of another, without sufficient lawful justification.

Key Points:

 Total restraint;

 Without lawful justification.

 Trespass

3. False Imprisonment

 When the restraint is total and a person is prevented from going out of certain
circumscribed limits, the offence is that of 'wrongful confinement’ under the IPC.

 The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no

imprisonment if a man is prevented from going to a particular direction, but he is free to
go to any other direction.
 False Imprisonment
 Restraining a person’s movement and liberty without lawful sanction is known as false
imprisonment. If movement is blocked from all sides but one, it will not amount to false
imprisonment as the person is free to move. However, if the person is not aware that one
side is not restrained, then it shall amount to false imprisonment. If the person has
consented to being restrained, it will not amount to false imprisonment. Police and other
public authorities restraining an individual according to the law will not be liable for
false imprisonment. However, if the police officer is not authorized to arrest and is
aware of the fact, they shall be liable for false imprisonment.

 The essential elements for wrongful restraint are:

 1. Total restrainment of the liberty and movement of an individual.

2. No lawful excuse for doing the same.