ABSTRACT

The legal notion of defamation, which is primarily concerned with protecting people's
reputations, has experienced substantial changes in the digital era. Defamation has
historically been examined through the prisms of slander and libel, making a distinction
between spoken and written forms of defamation. Defamation is widely defined as the
dissemination of false assertions that cause injury to an individual's reputation. However, the
boundaries of this legal idea have been revised with the introduction of social media, digital
communication platforms, and the internet.

The study examines the fundamental components of defamation laws, highlighting the
importance of false comments, their dissemination, and the subsequent damage they do to a
person's reputation. A comparative examination of defamation laws in various countries
provides valuable insights into the various strategies employed by legal systems around the
globe. The study looks at the effects of internet platforms, how quickly information spreads,
and how hard it is to tell the difference between opinion and reality. The intricacies stemming
from the worldwide scope of digital communication are emphasized, as jurisdictional
demarcations become hazy and established legal doctrines encounter unparalleled scrutiny.

The paper also discusses the fine line that must be drawn between maintaining freedom of
speech and safeguarding reputations. It talks about how courts struggle to maintain strong
defamation rules while upholding people's freedom to express their thoughts and ideas in
public. This research paper looks at the body of legal jurisprudence based on questions about
the legitimacy of defamation. As a result, it offers a comprehensive analysis of both the
present state of defamation law in India and the history of the law. Furthermore, the research
paper assesses the legality of criminal and civil defamation rulings made by the Supreme
Court in Subramanian Swamy and R. Rajagopal, respectively.

Keywords: Communication, Slander, Right to Privacy, Freedom, Libel.

 1. INTRODUCTION

“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”

-Abraham Lincon

The act of disseminating a false remark, whether spoken or written, that damages someone's
reputation is known as defamation and is typically a civil or criminal offense. There has been
defamation in the limelight all over the world mostly because to the countless defamation
cases that prominent politicians have brought against one another, usually on baseless
allegations, in order to satiate their political resentment, followed by cross-defamation
lawsuits.

Making false claims about someone with the purpose to damage their reputation is referred to
as defamation. These untrue claims, also referred to as defamatory comments, can be
expressed verbally (slander) or in writing (libel). While defamation laws differ from one
country to the next, they usually have some things in common. The goal of defamation laws
is to achieve a compromise between defending a person's reputation and preserving their
freedom of speech. Legal systems frequently have to consider the rights and interests of the
parties involved, so striking this fine balance may be difficult1.

It's crucial to remember that truth, privilege, and occasionally even permission can serve as
defences against defamation. Furthermore, public persons frequently have to prove that the
false remark was made with genuine malice, which puts them at a greater burden of evidence.
When handling possible defamation concerns, it is important to understand local legislation
and get legal advice from specialists as defamation laws can be complicated and varied.
"Defamation" refers, in legal parlance, to an attack on someone else's reputation by the
publication of false information (written correspondence with an outsider)2.

To injure someone's reputation is to "defame" them. The word "defamation" originates from
the Latin word "diffamare," which means to spread or convey facts about a person that can
damage their reputation. Therefore, the only definition of "defamation" is harming someone's
reputation. Defamation is prohibited in both civil and criminal circumstances. Legislation

1
“Defamation” by Saptadip Nandi. Available at http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Saptadip-Nandi-Chowdhury.pdf. Accessed on 19-01-2024.
2
Veeder, Van Vechten. “The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation. I.” Columbia Law Review 3, no. 8
(1903): 546–73. Accessed on 20-01-2024.
prohibits defamation, but there are no particular statutes that specifically address the civil law
that surrounds it. Defamation is dealt with in civil law under the tort law system, and in
criminal law under Sections 499–502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Defamation is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offense of publishing malicious and
false statements with the intent to harm another person's reputation. It seems that this term's
meaning covers both slander and libel. Defamation has become a major problem in today's
society because to the media frenzy around the Article 19(1)(a) right to free expression.
Individuals fear that remarks they make, whether in public or privately, might spark a
controversy or land them in legal terms3.

It's a challenging idea, and human creativity is the only thing that can restrict the range of
variations. Although the idea of criticism may have originated with "English law,"
comparable ideas have been around for a long. The "Roman law" imposed the strictest
criminal penalties against oppressive drones. In early English and German law, the
punishment for insults was frequently to chop off the offender's tongue. Since freedom of
speech and expression may now be exercised both online and offline, defamation is a big
problem. Thanks to social media, it's now simpler than ever for erroneous information to
spread quickly and damage people's reputations. Although defamation is illegal in India, there
is a rising push to decriminalize it4.

It's critical to comprehend the social, legal, and overall effects of such a decision, as well as
whether society would benefit or suffer. This is especially important in the era of social
media, since charges of defamation are more common. Given these intricacies, it is crucial to
thoroughly weigh the opportunities and difficulties associated with defamation being
decriminalized under Indian law5.

3
Valdaya, Ankit, Legal Consequences of Online Defamation in India (January 28, 2014). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2386983. Accessed on 20-01-2024.
4
Understanding of cyber defamation and its impact: a critical analysis. Niha Khan, Dr. Anisa Shaikh and Mr.
Vaibhav Pratap Singh. Accessed in 20-01-2024.
5
Veeder, Van Vechten. “The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation. I.” Columbia Law Review 3, no. 8
(1903): 546–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1109121. Accessed on 20-01-2024.
 2. DEFAMATION AS CRIMINAL WRONG

Defamation has always been seen as a civil wrong, and those who feel they have been
defamed usually bring a civil case to recover damages for reputational injury. Defamation,
however, may also be considered a criminal violation in some countries, giving rise to
criminal accusations and possible punishments including fines or jail time. The deliberate and
malevolent dissemination of false information with the goal to damage someone's reputation
is typically considered criminal defamation. Countries frequently differ greatly in their
criminality of defamation, and others may not even have any laws against it. Because they
may result in criminal penalties for expressing thoughts or sharing information, criminal
defamation laws can give rise to issues regarding the right to free speech.

The integrity of an individual is protected by the IPC under Chapter XXI, sections 499–502.
Defamation of the state is forbidden by Section 124A of the Code; defamation of a group,
such as a community, is prohibited by Section 153 of the Code; and hate speech that hurts
religious feelings is prohibited by Section 295A.

According to Section 499 of the IPC, defamation can be done by words (spoken or meant to
be read), signs, or visual representations that are: a published or spoken imputation against
any individual; If the accusation is made verbally or in writing with the knowledge or desire
to hurt the person to whom it relates.

2.1. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 18606

Section 499. Defamation.

“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, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person”.

In compliance with Section 499, defamation can occur when someone speaks or writes
something about another person with the intention of harming their reputation, or when they
have enough information to suspect that the person's reputation will be tarnished. In this
section, the words "makes or publishes" are emphasized. The dissemination of harmful

6
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742/. Accessed on 19-01-2024.
imputation is the fundamental element of the offense. When someone publishes a defamatory
statement, both the publisher and the original author are accountable. Since the intent is to stir
hate towards others, it is necessary that the imputation be communicated to a third party in
order to establish the crime.

Essential ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code

• Intention - For anything to be considered defamation, the person's words, deeds, and
imputations must either be meant to harm someone's reputation or the accused must
have a reasonable awareness that their actions may do so.
• Reference to an aggrieved party - The remarks must contain an imputation
concerning a particular person or persons whose identity may be determined. It is not
required that the individual be a single person.
• It must be a derogatory comment - The interpretation of a statement by right-thinking
members of the community determines whether or not it is defamatory. If the
plaintiff's reputation was going to be harmed, then there is no defence to say the
statement was not meant to be defamatory.

Exceptions of Section 499 of Indian Penal code

1. Public conduct of public servants7

Speaking honestly about a public servant's behaviour while carrying out his official duties
or about his character to the degree that it manifests in that behaviour and no more is not
defamatory. As long as their remarks are not motivated by hatred, everyone has the
freedom to express their opinions about the activities of public authorities that have an
impact on them as citizens of the nation.

• A statement must be founded on the real facts in order to be considered fair.

• It should not be assumed that the individual whose behaviour or output is
being criticized has corrupt or dishonest motivations unless the evidence
support such an assumption.
• It must be a truthful and impartial assessment of the author's actual viewpoint.
• There must be a common benefit.

7
Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal v. Sheshrao Anandrao Lad criminal revision application NO. 6/ 2008
 2. Disseminating court reporting8

It is not defamatory to publish a report that is basically truthful of the procedures of a Court
of Justice or the outcome of any such proceedings. The publication of a fair and accurate
account of proceedings before a properly formed judicial panel in an open court setting is
protected by the privilege against malicious publication.

3. Merits of public performance9

Speaking in good faith about the qualities of a performance that its creator has submitted for
public review or about the creator's character as it is portrayed in that performance and no
more is not considered defamation. This exemption is meant to provide assistance to the
public in assessing the public performance that is being reviewed. As long as criticism is
offered fairly and in good faith, it is acceptable to voice concerns about any kind of public
performance. This exception states that reasonable care and attention, rather than logical
infallibility, are necessary for good faith.

4. Errors that need to be corrected or disclosed for the benefit of the public10

If an imputation is made or published for the advantage of the public, it is not considered
defamation to suggest anything accurate about another person. Whether or not it is in the
public interest, it is a factual matter. The accused must prove that the statement he made was
true in full, not only in part, in order to be eligible for this exemption. An inquiry into
whether the publication meant to give any advantage to the entire or portion of the public is
necessary to show whether or not the statement was made for the public good.

5. Behaviour of someone addressing a matter of public concern

Speaking your mind about someone else's behaviour on a public matter in good faith is not
defamatory, and you should only appreciate someone's integrity to the degree that their
actions indicate who they are. In good faith, publicists who engage in politics or other issues
impacting the public may face criticism. Comparative advertisement: As part of the right to
freedom of speech and expression, "commercial speech" is safeguarded by Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution. A commercial advertisement is a form of speech. A party that advertises by
contrasting their products or services with those of another is engaging in comparative

8
Maaksud Saiyed vs State of Gujarat & Ors AIR ONLINE 2007 SC 332
9
Ranganayakamma v. K Venugopala Rao Criminal Revision case 660 of 1985
10
Yadav Motiram Patil v Rajiv G Ghodankar criminal writ petition NO. 122 OF 2009
advertising. The advertiser is free to boast about how much better their product is
technologically than that of their rivals. But while doing so, he cannot disparage the
competitor's products. If an advertising is a provocative campaign against the products of a
rival, then negative marketing is not allowed.

2.2. Punishment for Defamation under the penal code – Section 500

Section 500. Punishment for defamation11

“Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

If someone is found guilty of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, they will face the
penalties outlined in Section 500, which can be either a fine or a simple jail sentence of up to
two years. Criminal defamation requires that the accused's words, deeds, or imputations
either be intended to harm someone's reputation or show a reasonable awareness that their
actions may do so.

2.3. Section 501 of Indian Penal Code, 186012

Section 501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory

“Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such
matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code forbids the publication of defamatory material. It says
that anybody who prints or engraves something that is defamatory would harm that person's
reputation and bring shame and embarrassment to their character, knowing or having reason
to suspect that such a thing is defamatory. In simple terms, this provision ensures that the
individual who printed any defamatory text is held accountable and looks for instances of it.
The maximum penalty allowed under this clause is two years in jail, a fine, or both.

2.4. Section 502 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 502. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter.

11
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1408202/. Accessed on 18-01-2024.
12
https://devgan.in/ipc/section/501/. Accessed on 18-01-2024.
 “Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory
matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

Section 502 of the Indian Penal Code penalizes anybody who sells or plans to sell any printed
item that he knows or has reasonable suspicion contains defamatory content. There will be a
two-year maximum sentence for jail or a fine. Both are applicable in some situations.

2.5. Important Judgements on Criminal Defamation

1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law13

The right to freedom of speech and expression was invoked in this case to contest the
constitutional legitimacy of the defamation offense under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of these provisions. A
writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the defamation charge under the Indian Penal
Code was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and expression, and
that the charge of defamation violates this right.

The Supreme Court's two-judge panel maintained the legality of the defamation offense under
the Indian Penal Code. It was noted that the legislature's intention to associate broader terms
with words with narrower meanings was clear, therefore the construction rule of noscitur a
social could not be applied. The Court found that it is "difficult to come to a conclusion that
the existence of criminal defamation is absolutely obnoxious to freedom of speech and
expression" since it is impossible for anybody to libel another person in the name of freedom
of speech and expression. The Court further declared that "reputation protection is a
fundamental right".

2. MP Pillai v. MP Chacko14

This decision is noteworthy because it clarifies that the entire content of any published item
must be taken into account when determining whether or not it is defamatory. This time, the
issue was a piece of writing titled "Syrian Christians and National Integrity." It was released
in two sections, the first of which celebrated the Syrian Christian community's heritage and
the second of which emphasized how the community's unemployment and poverty force

13
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law AIR 2016 SC 2728
14
MP Pillai v. MP Chacko 1986 CRI LJ 2002
some of its women to turn to prostitution in order to support their families. Priests were also
praised for their contributions to humanity. A grievance was lodged, contending that the piece
disparaged the community.

The Court noted that in order to assess the article's significance, it must be read in its whole.
The surrounding conditions must also be taken into account when determining whether or not
the piece constitutes defamation.

3. Dogar Singh and Anr. v. Shobha Gupta and Anr15

The word "good faith" as it appears in Section 499 exemption 3 was emphasized in the case's
ruling. In this instance, Mrs. Shobha Gupta, the principal of Punjab Public School in
Pugwara, filed a complaint against two individuals on the grounds that they had made
disparaging statements in the complaint that they had sent to the Deputy Commissioner in
Kapurthala. The accused claimed in the complaint that "the aforementioned school's building
is quite unsafe and could cause a disaster for the students at this school at any time; that the
students' lack of discipline is unrestricted and has caused a great deal of trouble for the
nearby residents". If these are not checked in a timely manner, they could become a major
issue for the city. The principal, Mrs. Shobha Gupta, is turning a deaf ear to the character of
the students, and neither the school nor its grounds seem to be conducive to proper
accommodation. The accused's claims were determined to be untrue during an investigation
conducted by the SDM, and their complaint was dropped. As a result, Ms. Shobha Gupta
initiated a criminal defamation lawsuit against the defendants.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the complaint lacked foundation and
contained careless remarks. The Indian Penal Code's Section 499, Exception 3, does not
allow for the accused to be protected. It was noted in this instance that the claim that the
school serves as a gathering spot for people of different genders was careless and created with
the objective of bringing the school principal into contempt. They cannot be excused under
any exemption since they acted without good intentions.

4. Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharro Ganpatrao Kapiskar16

The issue at hand is the veracity and accuracy of assembly proceedings reports that are
printed in newspapers. A complaint was lodged in accordance with Sections 499, 500, 501,

15
Dogar Singh and Anr. v. Shobha Gupta and Anr 1998 CRI LJ 1541
16
Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharro Ganpatrao Kapiskar AIR 1998 SC 2117
and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the Chief Editor of Lokmat daily should face
charges of defamation for disseminating information about the legislative procedures in
Maharashtra. According to the press, the minister acknowledged misuse of government cash
when questioned about it, stating that the investigation found evidence of misappropriation.
He also disclosed five identities, one of which was the complainants, and said that they had
engaged in misappropriation.

In short, the Supreme Court emphasized that the newspaper's reporting was factual, truthful,
and done with good intentions. Additionally, it was declared, "It cannot be alleged that the
accused meant to injure the complainant's reputation if they published the report in good faith
and really believed the Minister's account to be truthful. It was a report on the behaviour of
public employees who were given public monies to be used for the general welfare. The
case's facts and circumstances so make it clear that the news articles were released for the
benefit of the general public. The High Court has disregarded each of these factors.

5. Mohammad Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K17

This case looked at how the vicarious culpability concept applied to criminal defamation
offenses. Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code were used to file a complaint
against the respondent, who was the only proprietor of the Jaya Kirana newspaper. After the
Sessions Court rejected the complaint, the complainant filed a Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code lawsuit in the High Court. However, the High Court decided that as there is
no such thing as vicarious culpability in criminal law, the defamation action could only be
brought against the newspaper's editor and not the owner.

The High Court noted that if the owner was to receive punishment, it would result in an
injustice being done. An appeal was filed in opposition to this High Court judgment.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and noted that the owner of a
newspaper employs people to print, publish, and sell the newspaper for a financial gain out of
the said activity, so the extent to which the principle of vicarious liability in criminal law
applies, particularly in the context of the offences relating to defamation, requires a serious
examination in appropriate cases. In this instance, it was made clear that, in accordance with
Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code, the newspaper's owner, printer, and those who make
sales might all be held accountable for the crime of defamation.

17
Mohammad Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K 2018 (1) SCC 615
 3. CONCLUSION

In summary, making false remarks that damage the reputation of a person or organization is
defamation, a complicated legal notion. The spread of incorrect information, harm to one's
reputation, and potential legal repercussions are all included in the dynamics of defamation.
When assessing defamation charges, it's critical to take into account the statements' intended
meaning, the veracity of the facts, and the possible harm. There are several distinct types of
defamation, including libel (written or published defamation) and slander (spoken
defamation). The quick dissemination of information and the possibility of extensive harm to
an individual's reputation brought about by the emergence of digital communication
platforms have created additional obstacles and difficulties for defamation lawsuits.

Criminal and civil defamation cases may be filed in India concurrently or consecutively.
Protecting someone's reputation is the goal of defamation laws. Freedom of speech and
expression are seen as fundamental rights in a democratic nation; these rights are not
unrestricted; defamation is one such justifiable restriction. In our culture, these two pursuits
are highly valued; the former is regarded as perhaps the most prized quality of our society,
while the latter is the cornerstone of a democracy. The judiciary must consider how to
reconcile competing demands for freedom of speech and expression with this goal, which is
its main concern.

A thorough analysis of the relevant facts, legal precedents, and societal factors is necessary to
fully understand the complex subject of defamation. The dynamics of defamation will
probably continue to change as communication technologies advance, requiring constant
legal and moral debates to find a reasonable balance between upholding the right to free
speech and safeguarding reputation.
 4. REFERENCES

1. “Defamation” by Saptadip Nandi. Available at http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-

content/uploads/2021/12/Saptadip-Nandi-Chowdhury.pdf. Accessed on 19-01-2024.
2. Veeder, Van Vechten. “The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation. I.”
Columbia Law Review 3, no. 8 (1903): 546–73. Accessed on 20-01-2024.
3. Valdaya, Ankit, Legal Consequences of Online Defamation in India (January 28,
2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2386983. Accessed on 20-01-
2024.
4. Understanding of cyber defamation and its impact: a critical analysis. Niha Khan, Dr.
Anisa Shaikh and Mr. Vaibhav Pratap Singh. Accessed in 20-01-2024
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742/. Accessed on 19-01-2024.
6. Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal v. Sheshrao Anandrao Lad criminal revision application
NO. 6/ 2008
7. Maaksud Saiyed vs State of Gujarat & Ors AIR ONLINE 2007 SC 332
8. Ranganayakamma v. K Venugopala Rao Criminal Revision case 660 of 19
9. Yadav Motiram Patil v Rajiv G Ghodankar criminal writ petition NO. 122 OF 2009
10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1408202/. Accessed on 18-01-2024.
11. https://devgan.in/ipc/section/501/. Accessed on 18-01-2024.
12. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law AIR 2016 SC 2728
13. MP Pillai v. MP Chacko 1986 CRI LJ 2002
14. Dogar Singh and Anr. v. Shobha Gupta and Anr 1998 CRI LJ 1541
15. Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharro Ganpatrao Kapiskar AIR 1998 SC 2117
16. Mohammad Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K 2018 (1) SCC 615