[Type the document title]

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
B.B.A., L.L.B. (HONS.), BANKING & FINANCE

SEMESTER - I

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18

SESSIONS: JULY-DEC

PROJECT
FOR
LAW OF TORTS
On the topic:

DEFAMATION

Under the Supervision of: Ms. Charu Srivastava

NAME: DEVIKA PALIWAL

SAP ID: 500060540

ROLL NO: 14
 [Type the document title]

Defamation
1. Introduction:

Beside life, what man minds most is their notoriety. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
defamation implies the offense of harming a man's character, popularity, or notoriety by false and
pernicious proclamations. The term is by all accounts far reaching of both criticism and
defamation. Maligning has turned into a consuming issue in the present circumstances; affability
the developing media furor which has been made over the right to speak freely and articulation as
conceived under article 19 (1) (a). There exists an anxiety in the psyche of people whether in their
individual or open limit as to which proclamation of theirs strength constitute a furore or land
them in a correctional facility. The right of each man during his lifetime to the unimpaired
possession of his reputation and good name is recognized by law. Reputation depends upon
opinion and opinion in the main on the communication of thought and information from one
individual to another. A person’s own opinion about himself is not his reputation. It means rather
the opinion of others about him. The good name one bears or the esteem in which one is held in
society is one’s reputation.

The law of defamation is based upon the fundamental principle that the reputation of a member of
society, the esteem in which he is held by it, the credit and trust it reposes on his intelligence,
honour and integrity, all these constitute a valuable asset for him and it deserves protection at the
hands of law. The love of reputation is the great moving principle of human action and as such it
should be protected and encouraged for the progress of the society. The right of every person to
the reputation which his conduct deserves stands on the same footing with the right to the
enjoyment of his life, liberty, health, property, and all comforts and advantages which appertain
to a state of civil society in as much as security to reputation is indispensably essential to the
enjoyment of every right and privilege incident to such a state.

In this connection we must note a subtle distinction between reputation on the one hand and
character on the other. The character of a person signifies the reality about him whereas
reputation indicates only what is reported of him by others. Reputation means what is thought of
a person by others and is constituted by public opinion; it is the general credit which a man has
obtained in that opinion. It is the external to him while the character is internal to him.
Disposition comprehends the springs and motives of actions, is permanent and settled and
respects the whole frame and texture of his mind. When a swears that another has a good
character , in this sense gives the result of his own personal experience and observation or his
own individual opinion of the person’s character as is done by a master who is asked by another
as to the character of his servant. It is the essence of successful hypocrisy to combine a good
 [Type the document title]

reputation with a bad disposition and according to R .v. Rowton1 reputation is the important
matter.
The law of defamation aims at giving protecting only to the external reputation of a person and
not to his internal disposition or character. Thus “the law recognizes in every man a right to have
the estimation in which he stands in the opinion of others unaffected by false statements to his
discredit”, per Cave, J. in Scott v. Sampson2. Any disparagement of his good name is
infringement of his right, and therefore a wrongful act for which civil and criminal proceedings
would lie. In this case Sampson, the editor of a paper, was sued for writing a libellous article on
Scott, a drama critic, charging him with abusing his position to extort money from persons by
threatening them with criticism. The allegations were found false. The defendant wanted to let in
evidence of rumours and gossip about the plaintiff in some clubs. The court rejected all these
items of evidence and the defendant was held liable. Cave, J. said forcibly thus: “Is the court to
receive the gossip of some idler in a club? Rumour is a lying jade begotten by gossip out of
hearsay and is not to be admitted as evidence in a court of law.”

Defamation is both a civil and criminal wrong. Mischief to a private individual is the basis of the
law of civil defamation while mischief to the society is the basis of criminal defamation.

2. History:

From early circumstances, individuals have understood defamatory and damaging explanations
made in an open way (convicium adversus bonos mores).

The Praetorian Edict, systematized around 130 A.D., pronounced that an activity could be raised
for yelling at somebody as opposed to great ethics: "qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui
fecisse cuiusve musical show factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in
eum iudicium dabo." For this situation the pith of the offense lay in the unwarrantable open
announcement. As indicated by Ulpian, not all yelling was noteworthy. Drawing on the
contention of Labeo, he stated that the offense comprised in yelling in opposition to the ethics of
the city ("adversus bonos mores huius civitatis") something adept to acquire offensiveness or
disdain ("quae... promotion infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret") the individual uncovered
thereto. Any demonstration well-suited to bring someone else into unsavoriness offered ascend to
an actio injurarum. In such a case reality of the announcements was no defense for general
society and offending way in which they had been made. However, even in broad daylight
matters, the blamed had the chance to legitimize his activities by straightforwardly expressing
what he viewed fundamental for open security as upbraided by the slander, and ended up being
true. The second head included defamatory articulations made in private, and for this situation the
offense lay in the substance of the ascription, not in the way of its distribution. The fact of the

1
1865 LECA 520: 10 Cox CC 25.
2
(1882) 8 QB 491.
 [Type the document title]

matter was in this manner an adequate safeguard, for no man had a privilege to request legitimate
assurance for a false notoriety.

Roman law was gone for giving adequate extension for the talk of a man's character, while it
shielded him from unnecessary affront and agony. The solution for verbal slander was for quite
some time bound to a common activity for a financial punishment, which was assessed by the
importance of the case, and which, albeit malevolent in its character, without a doubt included
basically the component of remuneration. In any case, another cure was presented with the
augmentation of the criminal law, under which numerous sorts of slander were rebuffed with
incredible seriousness. In the meantime expanded significance connected to the distribution of
defamatory books and compositions, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we infer our cutting
edge utilization of the word criticism; and under the later heads the last term came to be
exceptionally connected to mysterious allegations or pasquils, the scattering of which was viewed
as especially hazardous, and chatted with extremely serious discipline, regardless of whether the
issue contained in them were valid or false.

Before the mid 1300s, activities for the forerunner of defamation were dark and absolutely inside
the purview of the Church courts, it was not until considerably later that the King's courts
permitted an activity for defamatory words. The regularly physically-based nature of the custom-
based law was not for making an offense which laid on minor words. It was considerably more
worried about the substantial activities and aftereffects of, for instance, strike, robbery and
murder. It took until the 1500s under the steady gaze of a precedent-based law activity for slander
showed up. Maybe the key explanation behind this deferral, as plot above, is the way that pre-
1500, criticism was viewed as an absolutely otherworldly issue and was in this manner managed
by the Church courts. The Church courts attempted Defamation as a criminal offense and could
just condemn the wrongdoer to atonement, in fact a significant light discipline. This early
refinement between the Church and precedent-based law locales will be analyzed in a later blog
entry.

Be that as it may, before this time, there were periodic activities that tons of criticism and the
discoloring of somebody's character or notoriety. For instance, in the fourteenth Century, there
were activities brought by nobles who had been criticized in the King's open courts. A judge in
1358 recuperated a sizable whole of cash for being known as a trickster at court. In addition, a
few activities were brought in regards to false articulations about men having second relational
unions, an exceptionally harming allegation that could demolish their notorieties. Around a
similar time, the 1378 Statute of scandalum magnatum permitted imperative judges and Church
authorities to bring an activity on the off chance that they had been offended or maligned. The
primary custom-based law criticism case on record was acquired 1507, where the King's Court
changed its brain with respect to negligible words and chose they could affect the respect of a
man to such an extent, or significantly more along these lines, than physical assaults. At the time,
three classifications of Defamation existed: (1) Words blaming somebody for a wrongdoing; (2)
Words blaming somebody for being inept at their activity and (3) Words blaming somebody for
having a specific illness, (for example, the French pox). Human instinct being as it may be, this
prompted a surge of activities and different types of maligning turned into the bread-and-
 [Type the document title]

margarine work of the King's court, turning into its most managed activity by the mid-to-late
sixteenth Century. In instances of 1557 and 1565, a few judges made endeavors to restrain the
quantity of activities by (1) demanding the inquirer demonstrating exceptional and genuine harm
to their notoriety; (2) words said as flippantly or in outrage were not noteworthy and (3) by
deciphering uncertain words as less defamatory than they could possibly be. This served to
confine the activities marginally however they were still to a great degree normal. A few
particular guidelines were likewise made, for example, a man having the capacity to bring an
activity regardless of the possibility that he officially had a terrible notoriety. Until 1660, the
customary law did not draw a reasonable qualification between criticism that was talked or that
which was in composing. In any case, defamatory words in composing were frequently rebuffed
with harsher sentences. The present refinement is between fleeting, frequently talked,
explanations (Slander) and perpetual, regularly composed, proclamations (Libel).

The present law of Defamation is comprehensively that an activity can be acquired the High
Court by a petitioner if a distributed articulation would aggravate a sensible individual consider
them. The activities spin around the Slander and Libel refinement specified promptly above.
There are a few protections to such a claim: (a) Justification (where the announcement is valid),
(b) Fair Comment (where the announcement would be accepted by a sensible individual) and (c)
Privilege (where the announcement is advantaged, for instance, something said in the Houses of
Parliament).

Slander is as yet an exceptionally prevalent activity and cases including it are frequently feature
news with an assortment of big names guaranteeing their notoriety has been discolored, regularly
by proclamations made in daily papers. This advanced surge of activities prompted the death of
the Defamation Act 2013, which came into compel on the 25th of April 2013. This Act is
outfitted towards striking another harmony between the inquirer and litigant, apparently making
claims harder to demonstrate by laying out another necessity of genuine mischief to the
petitioner's notoriety and enhancing the quality of the different barriers. The Act just applies to
defamatory explanations after its initiation consequently the more seasoned criticism law will
apply by and large proceeding in 2014/15.

3. Defamation: Definition and elements

“Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of
right-thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that
person. It is libel if the statement be in permanent form and slander if it consists in significant
words or gestures.”3
It was thought formerly that defamation consisted in making or publishing a statement which
would tend to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule; but now it is recognized that if the
effect of the statement is to cause the defamed person to be shunned or avoided that would also
lead to defamation. For example, if A falsely says of a respectable young lady B that she has been
raped by X against her consent, there is no moral discredit attached to her arising out of this

3
Winfield.
 [Type the document title]

statement but nevertheless other suitable young men hearing this statement may hesitate to marry
her. They may have full sympathy towards her but nevertheless they may shun her society.
Again, the law may take into consideration only the opinion of the right-thinking members of
the society and not of the low, uncultured people like criminals. In Mawe v. Piggott4, an Irish
priest sued for words charging him with being a informer against a certain classes who were
either themselves criminals, or who sympathized with crime, it would expose a person to great
odium to represent him as an informer or otherwise acting in the detection of crime. “That,” said
the court, “is quite true but we cannot called upon to adopt that standard. The very circumstances
that will make a person regarded with disfavor by the criminal classes will raise his character in
the estimation in which a man is held by society generally.” In Clay v. Roberts5, a doctor brought
an action against the defendant for having alleged that he met homoeopaths in consultation. The
plaintiff alleged that such conduct was considered by medical opinion to be improper and
disgraceful. It was held that the defendant was not liable. It was successfully contended for the
defendant thus: “Is it defamation? Would it be libellous to write of a lady of fashion that she has
been seen on the top of an omnibus or of a nobleman that he was in the habit of burning tallow
candles? There is a distinction between imputing what is merely breach of conventional
etiquette and what is illegal, mischievous or sinful between, in fact, matters of taste and matters
of crime.” Again, in Leetham v. Rank6 Farwell, L.J. said that “it is not enough to prove that the
words spoken rendered the plaintiff obnoxious to a limited class; it should be proved that the
words are such as would produce a bad impression in the minds of average reasonable men”. In
Myroft v. Sleigh7t, the plaintiff and defendant were members of fisherman’s trade union. Disputes
arose on the question of wages and a strike was declared at a meeting of the union, the plaintiff
voting in favour of the strike. While the strike was in progress the defendant told certain members
of the union that the plaintiff had been “down dock” to the office of one of the owners and asked
for a ship to go to sea. It was contended that no action lay as the words only conveyed a
defamatory imputation to a limited class of persons, viz the members of the trade union. The
above cases mentioned seems to show that the words complained of must be such as would injure
the plaintiff’s reputation in the minds of ordinary, just and reasonable citizens.” Applying that test
to the facts of the case, the learned Judge said: “I imagine that it would not be defamatory merely
to say of an ordinary trade unionist that he had left his union, or that he had openly continued a
work in spite of the orders of the union, or that he had openly continued a work in spite of the
orders of the trade union. But here the words amounted to trickery, or of underhand disloyalty, or
hypocrisy, a very different matter. Such a charge to my mind is as defamatory of a trade unionist
as it is of any other man.” In Byrne v. Deane8 the plaintiff complained of a type written notice
which suggested that he had been guilty of disloyalty to his fellow members of a golf club by
reporting to the police that there were some gambling machines kept on the premises. Though it
is quite clear that any such charge would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of most of his fellow
members, it was held that it cannot be defamatory to say of a man that he has put in motion the
proper machinery for suppressing the crime, and it matters not that many may feel that the

4
1869 Ir Rep 4 CL 54.
5
(1863) 8 LT 397.
6
(1912) 57 SJ III CA.
7
(1912) 90 LJKB 883.
8
(1937) 1 KB 818.
 [Type the document title]

particular crime should never have been made a crime at all. It may very well that the legislature
in its wisdom has made into a crime something which the public conscience of many persons in
the country does not consider as involving any sort of moral reprobation.
In Noor Mohammed v. Mohd. Jiajddin9 it was held that there may be a hybrid type of
defamation not falling within the recognized categories of libel and slander. In this case, the
bridegroom and his father refused to take the bride to their home after marriage in full view of
guests. It was held that they committed the tort of defamation and damages could be awarded for
loss of reputation.
In M.L. Singhal v. Pradeep Mathur10 the wife of the plaintiff had died due to the negligence of
the defendant hospital. It was held that being a husband the plaintiff underwent mental torture and
agony on seeing his wife suffering and not being properly looked after by the nursing staff of the
hospital. Naturally the plaintiff was bound to make a complaint. He complained to the Medical
Council of India, or for that matter to different authorities. That by itself would not amount to
lowering the status of the defendant doctor. Because of this controversy, the hospital authorities
did not consider the candidature of the defendant for the post of honorary consultant. The plaintiff
could not be blamed for the same. Moreover, to express a grievance strongly against a
professional person does not amount to defamation by any stretch of imagination. In the opinion
of the court the difference of opinion, about the matter on the basis of which the plaintiff alleged
negligence on the part of the defendants, did not constitute defamation.

a) Categories of defamation:

For historical reasons, defamation can be divided into the following categories:

Libel – Representation in a permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy or statute.

Slander – Depiction in transient form. It is basically through words spoken or gestures.

 Libel:-Libel is a type of defamation in which the communication is published and

disseminated to a third party. Originally, libel was simply "the written word," but this
has been extended to include pictures, signs, representations such as an effigy and other
means in which a third party would be able to receive the information.
To prove the cause of action of libel, several elements must be met. There must be
publication of the item to at least one person other than the plaintiff, identification of a
particular person, a defamatory or false statement about that person, the party who
published the statement must be at fault and have known the statement to be false and
the plaintiff in some instances must be able to demonstrate actual injury.
Libel is actionable per se, which means the plaintiff will not have to prove any special
damage which is calculable as a specific sum of money. This is law presumes that when
a person's reputation is assailed, some damage must be resulted. For example, when a

9
AIR 1992 MP 244.
10
AIR 1996 Del 261.
 [Type the document title]

bank wrongfully prints the words “Account Closed” on a cheque that they bound to
honor, they are liable under tort of defamation.

 Slander:-In general, slander differs from libel in that the communication is usually of an
oral nature. In addition, a slander cause of action requires the plaintiff to show special
damages resulting from the communication. However, there are a few exceptions to the
damages rule. The imputation of crime or of a loathsome disease, communications
affecting a person's business or profession, or the implication that a woman is
"unchaste" do not require proof of actual harm. In these instances, proof of the actual
defamation will suffice to show the existence of damages. Slander is defamation in a
temporary or transient form. Publication is made through spoken words or gestures. This
type of defamation is not actionable per se. it means that the plaintiff must prove actual
or special damage in order to succeed in his action. Slander is actionable only on proof
of actual damage, except in the following circumstances.
Firstly, the imputation of criminal offence where the offence must be punishable with
imprisonment but a specific offence need not be mention. For instance, the phrase of “I
know enough to put you into” is held as slander.
Secondly, the imputation of a disease where the allegation must be that the claimant is
currently suffering from a contagious or infectious disease. For instances, the venereal
disease, leprosy are within this rule.
Thirdly, the imputation of unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl, for example the
Slander of Woman Act 1891 section 1 states that “words spoken and published ….
Which imputed unchastity or adultery to any women or girl shall not require special
damage to render them actionable.
Lastly, the imputation of unfitness or incompetence. This exception relates to allegations
of unfitness, incompetence or dishonesty in any profession, trade, calling or business
held or carried on by the claimant.

b) Essentials characteristics of defamation:

1. The defendant published the statement. In other words, that the defendant uttered or
distributed it to at least one person other than the plaintiff. You don’t need to be a media mogul
to be a publisher. There is no requirement that the statement be distributed broadly, to a large
group, or even to the general public. If you publish something on the Internet, you can assume
that this requirement has been met.
2. The statement is about the plaintiff. The statement need not name the person explicitly if
there is enough identifying information that those who know the person will recognize the
statement as being about him or her.
3. The statement harmed the reputation of the plaintiff, as opposed to being merely insulting
or offensive. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that
exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his peers, causes
him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade.
4. The statement was published with some level of fault. Fault requires that the defendant did
something he should not have done or failed to do something he should have. Depending on the
circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the
plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official.
 [Type the document title]

5. The statement was published without any applicable privilege. A number of privileges may
be available depending on what the defendant published.

4. Defenses:

 Truth: In numerous lawful frameworks, antagonistic open articulations about lawful

residents exhibited as truth must be ended up being defamatory or offensive/libelous.
Proving unfriendly open character proclamations to be genuine is frequently the best
safeguard against an indictment for criticism or maligning. Proclamations of feeling that
can't be demonstrated valid or false will probably need to apply some other sort of
protection. The utilization of the barrier of legitimization has perils, in any case; if the
respondent slanders the offended party and after that runs the guard of truth and fizzles,
he might be said to have exasperated the mischief. Another vital part of slander is the
distinction amongst certainty and conclusion. Explanations made as "actualities" are
every now and again noteworthy slander. Articulations of assessment or unadulterated
supposition are not significant. A few purviews decay to perceive any legitimate
qualification amongst actuality and assessment. To win harms in a slander case, the
offended party should first demonstrate that the announcements were "explanations of
truth or blended proclamations of sentiment and reality" and second that these
announcements were false. Then again, an average barrier to criticism is that the
announcements are conclusion, depending on supposition benefit. One of the significant
tests to recognize whether an announcement is actuality or feeling is whether the
announcement can be demonstrated valid or false in an official courtroom. In the event
that the announcement can be demonstrated valid or false, at that point, on that premise,
the case will be heard by a jury to decide if it is valid or false. On the off chance that the
announcement can't be demonstrated valid or false, the court may reject the criticism
case without it regularly setting off to a jury to discover actualities for the situation.

 Privilege and malice:

Benefits give an entire bar and reply to a slander suit, however conditions may must be
met before this insurance is conceded. Benefit is any condition that legitimizes or
reasons an at first sight tort. One might say that benefit perceives a litigant's activity
originated from an enthusiasm of social significance – and that society needs to ensure
such interests by not rebuffing the individuals who seek after them. Benefit can be
contended at whatever point a litigant can demonstrate that he acted from a legitimate
intention. While a few benefits have for quite some time been perceived, the court may
make another benefit for specific conditions – benefit as an agreed safeguard is a
conceivably consistently advancing precept. Such recently made or incidentally
perceived benefits are alluded to as leftover defense benefits.

There are two sorts of benefit in the customary law convention:

"Total benefit" has the impact that an announcement can't be sued on as defamatory,
regardless of the possibility that it were made noxiously; a run of the mill case is
confirm given in court (despite the fact that this may offer ascent to various cases, for
example, an activity for malignant arraignment or prevarication) or articulations made in
 [Type the document title]

a session of the governing body (known as 'Parliamentary benefit' in Commonwealth

nations).

"Qualified benefit" might be accessible to the writer as a barrier in conditions where it is

viewed as essential that the actualities be known in general society intrigue; an
illustration would be open gatherings, nearby government archives, and data identifying
with open bodies, for example, the police and fire divisions. Another illustration would
be that an educator – acting in accordance with some basic honesty and genuineness –
may compose an unacceptable letter of reference with inadmissible data. Qualified
benefit has an indistinguishable impact from supreme benefit, yet does not ensure
articulations that can be demonstrated to have been made with vindictive expectation.

5. Defamation laws: Comparative Analysis-

English law: The Defamation Acts of 1952 and 1996 are the important statutes in England that
lay down the law related to defamation. Under English law, there is a distinction between libel
and slander. Two reasons have been accorded. Firstly, libel not slander is punishable under
Criminal law. In fact, slander is no offence. Thus, libel is always actionable per se. Secondly; in
most cases of slander “special damage” must be shown.6 As far as law of torts is concerned,
slander is actionable, only in exceptional cases on proof of special damage. There are four
exceptional instances in which proof of special damage has to be proved: Imputation of criminal
offence to the plaintiff. ii. Imputation of a contagious (disease) or an infectious disease to the
plaintiff (which has the effect of preventing others from associating with the plaintiff). iii.
Imputation that a person is incompetent, dishonest or unfit in regard to the office, profession,
calling or trade or business carried o by him. iv. Imputation of unchastity or adultery to any
woman or girl is also actionable per se. This exception was created by the Slander of Women Act,
1891.

6. Defamation laws in India:

In India, there is no such distinction between libel and slander. Both libel and slander are criminal
offence. For better understanding, it can be divided into two categories:
i. Criminal
ii. Civil

Defamation as a crime
The IPC under chapter XXI sections 499-502 protects an individual’s / person’s reputation.
Defamation against the state is contained in section 124A [Sedition], Section 153 of the Code
provides for defamation of a class i.e., community [Riot], while section 295A deals with hate
speech with regards to outraging religious sentiments. [Hate Speech] Section 499 of the IPC
defines ‘defamation’ as being committed:
i. Through: (i) words (spoken or intended to be read), (ii) signs, or (iii) visible representations;
ii. Which: are a published or spoken imputation concerning any person;
iii. If the imputation is spoken or published with: (i) the intention of causing harm to the
reputation of the person to whom it pertains, or (ii) knowledge or reason to believe that the
imputation will harm the reputation of the person to whom it pertains will be harmed.
 [Type the document title]

This broad definition is subject to four explanations and ten exceptions.11 If a person is found
guilty of having committed defamation in terms of section 499 of the IPC, the punishment is
stipulated in section 500, simple imprisonment for up to two years or fine or with both. The Cr
PC, which lays down the procedural aspects of the law, states that the offence is noncognizable
and bailable. Those who are accused of the offence would generally not be taken into custody
without a warrant, and as such, an aggrieved person would not be able to simply file a police
complaint but would, in most cases, have to file a complaint before a magistrate. As far as the
'truth defence' is concerned, although ‘truth’ is generally considered to be a defence to defamation
as a civil offence, under criminal law, only truth is a defence to defamation as a crime (assuming,
of course, that it is demonstrably true) only in a limited number of circumstances. This can make
persons particularly vulnerable to being held guilty of having committed defamation under the
IPC even if the imputations they made were truthful.

Defamation as a tort
As far as defamation under tort law is concerned, as a general rule, the focus is on libel (i.e.,
written defamation) and not on slander (i.e., spoken defamation). In order to establish that a
statement is libellous, it must be proved that it is (i) false, (ii) written; (iii) defamatory, and (iv)
published. 12An interesting aspect of defamation as a tort is that it is only a wrong if the
defamation is of a nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. In most cases, this
translates to saying that it is not a tort to defame a deceased person since, as a general rule, the
plaintiff needs to be able to prove that the defamatory words referred to him. However, this does
not mean that there can be no cause of action if a dead person is defamed — if, for example, a
defamatory statement negatively impacts the reputation of a deceased person’s heir, an action for
defamation would be maintainable.

7. Judicial intervention:

The division seat involving Dipak Mishra and Prafulla C. Gasp JJ wherein Mishra J conveyed the
judgment is a huge 268 page record maintaining the sacred legitimacy of segments 499, 500 of
the Code, 1860 and 199 of Cr PC, 1973. An exhaustive and nitty gritty life system has been
attempted while touching base at the choice. It starts with the applied investigation of the terms
defamation and reputation by diving into different word reference implications, global
instruments and partnered sources. From that point, it groups the different entries of the diverse
direction for the candidate in the accompanying way:

i. Defamation essentially includes a civil action but not a criminal proceeding.

ii. If it is considered that defamation includes a criminal proceeding, then the application of
the principle noscitur a sociis has to be made so as to construe the real meaning of Article
19(2) and in the process save the fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a).
iii. The intention of Article 19(2) is to include a public law remedy in respect of a grievance
and not an actionable claim against an individual.
iv. Defamation of a person is an assault on their reputation by another individual which
cannot form a fundamental right. Hence, criminal defamation cannot claim to have its
source in the word “defamation” as used in Article 19(2).
8. Conclusion:

11
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 499.
12
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts 279(Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 26th edn., 2013).
 [Type the document title]

The law of defamation seeks to protect individual reputation. Its central problem is how to
reconcile this purpose with the competing demands of free speech. Since both these interests are
highly valued in our society, the former as perhaps the most dearly prized attribute of civilized
human beings while the latter the very foundation of a democratic society. The apex court gave
an interim time period of eight weeks to the petitioner within which they can challenge.
Meanwhile, other cases have also arisen especially in the political fora such as defamation case
filed against Gogoi13 or the alleged arrest of Kiku Sharda. 14The decision brings finality to the
case but raises certain questions in its wake. For instance, in a progressive economy like India, is
resorting to penal provisions justified especially in an era, where reformative justice is replacing
retributive justice. Besides the growing intolerance in the nation is another issue which might get
a reason due to this judgement. In such situations, there becomes a need to shed one’s inhibition
and discuss viable solutions. One such proposition in this area would be the right to reply. Of
course, this has been debated earlier. However, owing to the chilling effect which might be
incumbent on singular/association; ideal to answer has quite recently included the suspicion. In
any case, appropriate to answer shows up as an edified way to address matter instead of bouncing
on conclusions, sentencing and looking for harms. Some US states and different nations have
soaked up this idea.

Positively, we also can use this idea. The talk conveys us to the point that in instances of
protected elucidation, the stakes wind up noticeably higher. It is anything but difficult to condemn
instead of really get into the profundities of issue. Obviously, a sound feedback encourages
inventiveness and development. These days, it is anything but difficult to have a basic approach
instead of really get into the skin of the issue. Additionally, it can't be disregarded that the legal
tries its best to give a concordant development in such issues. As subjects, we as well, have a
responsibility– the time has come to return to

13
Samudra Gupta Kashyap, “Tarun Gogoi appears before court in Rs 100 crore defamation case” The Indian
Express, January 18, 2016.
14
Editorial, “Arrest of a comedian”, The Indian Express, January 15, 2016.
[Type the document title]