INDORE INSTITUTE OF LAW
(AFFILIATED TO D.A.V.V. & BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA)
LAW OF TORT
TOPIC: DEFAMATION
SUBMITTED BY:
SUYASH RAJ SINGH
BALLB 1ST SEM
SUBMITTED TO:
PROF.VISHVAJEET BHOOKAR
ACADEMIC SESSION
2022-23
Enrolment Number: Roll No.: 72
Date of Submission:
CERTIFICATE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT SUYASH RAJ SINGH OF BALLB 1ST SEM HAS
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE RESEARCH WORK IN DEFAMATION PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE KNOWLEDGE OF GIVEN BY
VISHVAJEET BHOOKAR PRESCRIBED BY INDORE INSTITUTE OF LAW.
THIS ASSIGNMENT IS THE RECORD OF AUTHENTIC WORK CARRIED OUT
DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-23
TEACHER’S SIGNATURE -----------------------------------------
DATE-------------------------
DECLARATION
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE PROJECT WORK ENTITLED DEFAMATION
SUBMITTED FOR FULFILLING THE ESSENTIAL CRITERIA OF INDORE INSTITUTE
OF LAW, IS A RECORD OF AN ORIGINAL WORK DONE BY ME UNDER
THE GUIDANCE OF VISHVAJEET BHOOKAR IN BALLB 1ST SEM, INDORE
INSTITUTE OF LAW FOR THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2022-23.
NAME- SUYASH RAJ SINGH
BALLB
1ST SEMESTER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SPECIAL THANKS OF GRATITUDE TO MY
PROFESSOR AND GUIDE VISHVAJEET BHOOKAR WHO GAVE US THE GOLDEN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS WONDERFUL ASSIGNMENT ON THE TOPICS
DEFAMATION I AM SINCERELY GRATEFUL TO MY TEACHER FOR GUIDING US
AND PROVIDING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND THUS HELPING ME TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT SUCCESSFULLY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GIVE A
HEARTY THANKS TO MY PARENTS WHO SUPPORTED ME MORALLY AS WELL
AS ECONOMICALLY IN COMPLETION OF THIS ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY
TYPE OF PROBLEM. I WOULD LIKE TO APPRECIATE AND THANK ALL MY
FRIENDS AND ALMA MATES FOR HELPING ME IN EVERY POSSIBLE MANNER IN
THE WAY OF COMPLETION OF MY PROJECT.LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST I WANT
TO THANK THE ALMIGHTY WHO MADE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.
ABSTRACT
Defamation is something new even though it is something that they face in
everyday that there are living as human being; either by knowing that this
statement provided by another person about them or someone else Is
defamatory in nature or by not knowing that such statement is defamatory in
nature.The development of science has turned the manner on how this tortuous
liability is conducted. In term of the meaning, the developments of science and
technology have turned the meaning of the term defamation to include the
digital nature of defamation. In this case even lawyers who have the knowledge
about law in general, they may not have the knowledge of the information and
communication technology law, thus may find it difficult to understand the true
meaning of the term defamation as currently understood worldwide.
INTRODUCTION
Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation
of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is
treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable
under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also
liable under the law. Defamation is defined in section 499 of Indian Penal Code
1860 and section 500 provides that a person committing an offense under this
section is liable with simple imprisonment for a term of 2 years or fine or with
both.what man cares most is their reputation. As per Black’s Law
Dictionary, defamation means the offence of injuring a person's character,
fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems
to be comprehensive of both libel and slander. Defamation has become a
burning issue in the present times; courtesy the growing media frenzy which
has been created over the freedom of speech and expression as envisaged
under article 19 (1) (a). There exists an apprehension in the mind of individuals
whether in their individual or public capacity as to which statement of theirs
might constitute a furore or land them behind bars. In the light of the
aforementioned discussion, the paper aims to examine critically the
conceptual definition of defamation, position of defamation laws in other
jurisdictions, position of defamation laws in India and the judicial intervention
in this matter by analyzing the judgement of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of
India1 with special reference to the Shreya Singhal’s2 case. Whether it is the
filing of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) or other
cases on infringement of private or public rights, defamation is adopted in
defence as a matter of prerogative and that being right to reputation.
Therefore, it becomes imperative to examine these issues in the light of the
judgement delivered so that clouds of doubt shed away and give vent to an
informed consensus on the mooted matter.
DEFAMATION
Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about
a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation.It can be spoken
(slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of
defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary
greatly between countries and jurisdictions (what exactly they must consist of,
whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent proving the alleged facts
is a valid defence).the act of communicating to a third party false statements
about a person that result in damage to that person’s
reputation. Libel and slander are the legal subcategories of defamation.
Generally speaking, libel is defamation in written words, pictures, or any other
visual symbols in a print or electronic medium. Slander is spoken defamation.
The advent of early broadcast communications (radio and television) in the 20th
century complicated this classification somewhat, as did the growth of social
media beginning in the early 21st century.
Although defamation is a creation of English law (see common law), similar
doctrines existed in ancient and medieval times. In Roman law, for example,
abusive chants were punishable by death (see capital punishment). In early
English and Germanic law, insults were punished by cutting out the
offender’s tongue.
As late as the 18th century in England, acts of slander were limited to
imputing crime or social disease and casting aspersions on professional
competence, and no offenses were added until the Slander of Women Act in
1891 made imputation of unchastity illegal. French defamation laws historically
have been more severe. An act of 1881, which inaugurated modern French
defamation law, required conspicuous retraction of libelous material in
newspapers and allowed truth as a defense only when publications concerned
public figures. Modern German defamation is similar but generally allows truth
as a defense. In Italy, truth seldom excuses defamation, which is criminally
punishable there. In the United States, a charge of defamation of a public figure
can be sustained only if the offending statement was made with “actual malice,”
which the U.S. Supream Court defined (1964)—as “knowledge that [the
statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Generally, defamation requires that the false statements be communicated
without the consent of the allegedly defamed person. Words or pictures are
interpreted according to common usage and in the context of publication. Injury
only to feelings is not defamation; there must be loss of reputation. The
defamed person need not be named but must be ascertainable. A class of
persons is considered defamed only if the statements refer to all members of
the class—particularly if the class is very small—or if particular members are
specially imputed.
Although both libel and slander embrace the essentials of defamation,
classifications are important because different liabilities arise under each. These
differences generally reflect a policy of holding people less stringently to what
they say than to what they write—so as to discourage trivial lawsuits—and a
policy of preserving the credibility of the written word by stiffer penalties. The
law also recognizes that written defamation is more likely to be injurious than
“just talk.”
Defamation is punishable under criminal law as well as civil law. But, to be
criminally punishable, it must be such that it would provoke a breach of the
peace or in some other way directly prejudice the public interest.Usually,
liability for a defamation falls on everyone involved in its communication whose
participation relates to content. Thus, not only writers but also editors,
managers, and even owners are responsible for libelous publications, whereas
vendors and distributors are not.In the United States, legal privilege arising from
a special relationship or position relieves liability (U.S. senators, for example,
cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the Senate). In certain
areas the mass media have broad discretion under the doctrine of “fair
comment”—a common-law privilege to criticize and comment on matters of
public interest—but such comment must pertain to a person’s work—not
private affairs—and must be factually accurate.
Libel and Slander
Libel and slander differ in terms of when a plaintiff can recover. Libel is
defamation that is written or communicated to a large audience. In such cases,
the plaintiff can recover even without having to specifically demonstrate that he
has suffered actual economic harm. If the defamatory statement is the kind of
communication which generally results in harm to reputation, the
law presumes such harm, and the plaintiff may recover.Slander is defamation
that is not libel; i.e., not written or mass communicated. In such cases, the
plaintiff must prove that actual harm has resulted from the impact of the
slander on his or her reputation. In most cases, actual harm is shown through
economic loss attributable to the impact of the slanderous statements on
business reputation. Courts have also allowed harm to be demonstrated by
negative personal consequences of the statement.Examples of personal harm
can be the loss of friends or a marriage engagement broken off due to the
statement.
There are a few exceptions to this requirement of “special damages” when it
comes to slander. Certain types of defamatory statements are considered so
egregious in their potential to destroy a reputation that the plaintiff does not
need to present specific evidence of harm. These are called cases of slander per
se. They include false statements accusing someone of committing a serious
crime, of having a serious communicable disease, of unfitness to carry out his
job and serious sexual misconduct. Each of these categories has evolved and
must be viewed on a case-by-case basis.
Defamation of Public Figures
It is common for defamation cases to involve public figures such as
politicians, celebrities and athletes. Since these people are in the public
spotlight, they are likely targets of defamatory statements. At the same time,
the law recognizes that it is critically important for the media and the public at
large to discuss issues of public concern without fear of litigation. This often
involves criticizing the people who have placed themselves in the public
spotlight, sometimes in harsh and personal terms.
To balance these competing interests, the United States Supreme Court
ruled in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision, that there is a higher
standard for defamation when the plaintiff is a public official. In Sullivan, a police
official sued The New York Times for publishing an advertisement on abuses of
civil rights protesters by an Alabama police department. Sullivan alleged that the
ad inaccurately reported important details of the event in question. The Court
ruled that as a public figure, Sullivan had to show more than mere carelessness
or negligence on the part of the newspapers. The Court ruled that public officials
must show actual malice on the part of the publisher of the defamatory
remarks. “Actual malice” means that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the
publisher knew that the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard to
the truth of the statement. This elevated standard allows for more freedom to
publish without fear of litigation, which enables uninhibited, open debate on
public issues, while still protecting public figures in the most severe cases of
defamation.
This requirement was later extended to all public figures, not just public
officials. So, the requirement to prove actual malice now also applies when
professional athletes, actors and even high-profile news anchors wish to sue
media outlets for defamation.
Defenses to Defamation
A fundamental rule of defamation law is that truth is an absolute defense.
If the alleged claim is true, then the publisher cannot be sued for libel or
slander.There are also other important defenses to claims of defamation. The
law recognizes certain forums as especially in need of protection from litigation
to foster free and open discussion among the participants. For example,
legislators and politicians debating public policy in legislative proceedings have
an absolute privilege which protects them from defamation claims. Likewise, to
protect the integrity and independence of the court system, statements made
during judicial proceedings are considered privileged and cannot be targeted for
defamation claims.
Finally, communications between married couples are not subject to
defamation claims. This is in line with the well-established principle of
privileging conversations between spouses.Today, protecting one’s reputation
is key to ensuring success in many facets of life. Even though the threshold for
making a successful claim of defamation is high, this area of tort law entitles a
plaintiff to protection and damages in cases of reputational harm.
How Do You Prove Defamation?
Defamation happens when a person makes a false statement—verbally or in
writing—about someone else that damages that person's reputation.
Defamation laws vary from state to state, but the basic principles of
defamation law are the same in every state.A plaintiff suing for defamation
typically must show all of the following:
1. The defendant published a statement about the plaintiff.
2. The statement was false.
3. The statement was injurious
4. The statement was unprivileged.
Let's take a look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.
1. Published
In the context of defamation law, "published" doesn't necessarily mean the
statement was printed in a book or magazine. A defamatory statement is
published when the defendant says or shows the statement to anyone other
than the plaintiff. Slanderous statements can be published in a speech, at a
town hall meeting, or during cocktail party chatter. Libelous statements can be
published in a newspaper, book, email, text message, tweet, or social media
post.
2. False
Only false statements of fact can be defamatory. Even terribly mean or
disparaging statements aren't defamatory if they are true. Most opinions don't
count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For
example, when a book reviewer writes, "This is the worst book I've read all
year," she's not defaming the author, she's stating her opinion about the book.
3. Injurious
The statement must be "injurious." Since the purpose of defamation law is to
compensate people for damage to their reputations, defamation plaintiffs
must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statements. A
defamatory statement is injurious if it, for example, gets you fired, causes you
to lose customers, causes you to be shunned by your friends, or leads to you
being harassed online.Some categories of false statements—called libel per
se or slander per se—are so widely understood to be harmful that they are
presumed to be injuries. Examples include statements that falsely claim that
someone:
• committed a crime
• has an infectious disease (like a sexually transmitted infection)
• lacks professional integrity or competence, or
• engaged in improper sexual conduct.
4. Unprivileged
Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be
"unprivileged." If someone makes a false statement about you, but the
statement is "privileged," you can't sue that person for defamation.
Lawmakers decide which types of speech are privileged so that speakers in
certain situations aren't constrained by worries that they will be sued for
defamation. Examples of privileged statements include statements made
during judicial proceedings, by high government officials, and by legislators
during legislative debates.
Analysis of Sections 499 and 500.
The provisions regarding defamation are provided in Section 499 to 502. Section
501 and Section 502 has already been explained earlier in this article. Now, let’s
understand the provisions contained in Section 499 and Section 500.Section 499
provides the definition of defamation and all the cases and exceptions of the act
of defamation. This is a lengthy Section with explanations and in total 10
exceptions included in it.Section 500 provides for punishment for the act of
defamation.
Explanation l: Defamation of the Dead
In case, a person defames another person who has passed away or is already
dead, by any means that is written, spoken, by gestures or pictures.then, it will
be an act of defamation, this act would have harmed the reputation of the
person if he would have been still alive, or in case it harms the reputation of the
family or close relatives of the deceased.
Explanation 2: Defamation of a Company or a Collection of Persons
If an act is intended to cause harm to a company or association or a group of
people, then it will amount to defamation. This means under it companies or
associations can slap a defamation suit against an individual.Priya
Parameshwaran Pillai v. Union of India and Ors.In this case, Priya, a
Greenpeace activist, wrote in her blog that the environment is degraded by the
power project which was set up by the Essar group. After which a suit of
defamation was filed by the Essar group.Priya, in her argument, contended that
the private companies should not be given the right to file a defamation suit
against an individual. But her contention was set aside by the Court, not allowing
any more questions and contentions to be added further.This particular case has
its roots in the previous Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India case. Let us
discuss that now.
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India
In the year 2014, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy alleged corruption charges on Ms.
Jaylathitha. After which Ms. Jaylathitha framed defamation charges on Dr.
Subramaniam Swamy. He in return challenged the constitutional validity of
Section 499 and Section 500 of the India Penal Code.The court, in this case,
upheld the constitutional validity of the offense of criminal defamation.And
ruled out that Section 499 and Section 500 of the India Penal Code, impose
reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression.
LITERATURE REVIEW
• In the research paper The Risks of Defamation: An analysis into the
driving factors determining the outcome of commercial defamation
cases the author has mentioned about the commercial defamation and
the damage credibility, which has a negative impact on stock prices,
consumer loyalty, and debt market access. Three key factors were
established based on the literature. The causes are evaluated and
analyzed using 20 historical real-life defamation case studies. All three
variables are found to be present in the sample and to have a substantial
impact on the outcome of a commercial defamation suit, according to
the report. The findings assist policymakers and businesses in better
understanding commercial defamation and developing appropriate
defamation-defense strategies.
• Commercial defamation can have devastating effects on a company's
financial performance and reputation (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2018; De
Villiers, 2009; Lidsky, 2000; Redlich 1995), although this does not always
seem to be the case (Shenzhen Fountain v. Caijing Magazine; McDonad
v. Caijing Magazine; McDonad v. Caijing Magazine; McDonad v. Caijing
Magazine; Mc Companies facing significant defamatory claims have
sometimes seen little or no harm to their market performance or
business value, casting doubt on the widely held academic belief. This
necessitates more research into the impact of defamation on a
company's financial performance, as well as the factors that affect its
defamation-defense strategies. The authors point out a number of
outcome-determinating variables that could influence the probability of
success in defamation cases.
• According to Chen (2005), driving factors are legislative factors that are
endogenous to a country. Scileppi (2002), Jackson (2001), Hearit (1996),
and Lidsky (2000) all stress how the defaming party's power and
financial resources affect company defence policy. Johnson and Gelb
(2002), on the other hand, concentrate on the internet and how it has
changed the laws of commercial defamation[4]. The elements of
defamation are first defined. The literature review will now focus on the
possible consequences of commercial defamation. Finally, it describes
contributing factors and suggests methods that can be implemented.
• Redlich (1995) expands on the financial effect of defamation on a public
corporation, claiming that defamation will result in lower credit ratings
or more difficult debt market access, lowering the company's financial
capability. It has an effect on business relationships and can jeopardize
future transactions; for example, a business partner may withdraw from
a proposed merger or joint venture. As in the case of Phillip Morris v.
ABC News, Redlich considers the risk that false accusations can trigger
government investigations, complicating otherwise smooth business
processes.
• According to Lidsky (2000), stock markets trade on facts, so defamatory
comments can cause stock prices to fall. De Villiers (2009) supports
Redlich's claim and emphasises the economic benefits that a good
reputation brings to a business. In accounting terms, credibility is a
component of goodwill, which is one of the most valuable assets a
business can possess. It enables businesses to charge higher rates while
also ensuring long-term consumer and employee loyalty (De Villiers,
2009). The importance of these advantages decreases when they are
slandered. Barth, Clement, Foster, and Kasznik (1998) conducted
empirical research on the positive relationship between brand value (i.e.
reputation) and stock price. Negative credibility, on the other hand, is
associated with lower stock values, according to Karpoff, Lee, and Martin
(2008). They estimate that when a company falsifies its financial
statements and this information becomes public, the reputational cost is
more than 7.5 times greater than the total cost of all legal fines.
CONCLUSION
Defamation laws in some of the countries of the Western Balkans still do not
ensure implementation of standards determined by the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) in its well established practice. Specification of laws that
would assist judges and journalists, as well as other citizens, to comprehend
European standards is advisable. The courts do not always apply the standards
established in the case-law of the ECtHR because all judges are not yet fully
aware that it is necessary and the states have not undertaken enough effort to
provide for translation of all relevant ECtHR judgments for interpretation of
freedom of expression. The opionion on whether the obligatory continuous
training of judges on human rights standards would be necessary, in terms of
determined number of working days, has been divided. However, all speakers
agreed that judges need to continuously invest in their education even without
seminars, but with use of appropriate literature and translations of ECtHR
judgements. The positive examples of the Macedonian Judicial Academy and
joint initiatives of judges and journalists in Macedonia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina have been emphasized. It was recomended that judges, apart
from the ECtHR case-law, consider the case-law of the Supreme Courts and
Constitutional Courts from the region, especially those that refer to the
judgments of the Strasbourg Court in their practice. (To that end, we propose
here useful internet pages containing translated judgments of the ECtHR and
the case-law of the courts from the region.) The majority of speakers
emphasized that crimes of defamation and insult should be abolished, or, at
least, that the states should adopt the minimal European standard and prevent
that those criminal acts lead to imprisonment or disproportional fines. Also,
the speakers highlighted the obligation to respect the proportionality principle
with regard to civil damages by considering the amounts of average monthly
salaries in the state or monthly salary of the defendant and in case of media
outlets, the amounts that should not jeopardize their existance. It was also
emphasized that the media do not always report responsibly, that they often
do not respect the presumption of inocence and promote sensationalism
rather than balanced reporting. The importance of media selfregulation for
promotion of professional standards in media and prevention of court
proceedings has been emphasized in that context. The publication of the
correction and reply, as well as criticism of the media by journalists’
selfregulatory bodies were highlighted as methods that might liberate the
courts from excessive civil proceedings for violation of honor and reputation.
REFERENCES
• Silberman MJ, Back to Basics: The Importance of Patient Respect. AANA
journal. 2015 Oct
• Hall-Lipsy E,Malanga S, Defamation lawsuits: academic sword or shield? EMBO
molecular medicine. 2017 Dec
• Sivaraman G,Heffernan A, Getting sued in 140 characters or less. The
Queensland nurse. 2015 Dec
• McConnell CR, Exchanging honest employment references: avoiding the traps
of defamation and negligent hiring. The health care manager. 2015 Jan-Mar
• Dyer O, Researcher who had job offer withdrawn sues anonymous
commentator for defamation. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2014 Nov 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Dr. R.K. Bangiya, Law of Torts, 25th Ed. 2020
• Peel Edwin, Goudkamp James, Winfield and Jolowicz, 19th Ed. 2014
• Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. 1968
• Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Law of Torts, 5th Ed. 2012
• Ratanlal& Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th Ed. 2013
