Defamation refers to actions aimed at harming an individual’s good reputation. However, the definition of “defamation” comes with various interpretations and exceptions under Indian law. Understanding these laws is essential for safeguarding one’s dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In recent times, defamation has been increasingly misused, sparking debates about its implications for free speech. This situation highlights the necessity for progressive thinking to adapt to the evolving needs of Indian society. This article will delve into the legal aspects of defamation in India, examine judicial perspectives, and discuss the future trajectory of this issue.
Defamation
In defamation, it must be established that the accused created or shared defamatory content. While “creating” usually means authorship, a person who intentionally copies or replicates such content may also be held liable. If someone is not the original author or publisher, they can claim the distribution of defamatory material was accidental if intent cannot be demonstrated. Defamation law aims to protect an individual’s reputation but has been adjusted to prevent public figures from using it to evade accountability for their actions.
Courts have also interpreted “making” and “publishing” as separate terms. In the case of Rohini Singh v. State of Gujarat (2018), it was determined that defamation may not occur if an individual merely types defamatory material without distributing it. Therefore, the claimant must show that the defamatory content was intended for an audience.
According to Mrs. Pat Sharpe v. Dwijendra Nath Bose (1963), if someone receives defamatory information from an anonymous source and publishes it, the author of the article—not the source—holds liability. When applied appropriately, defamation laws protect individuals from harmful false statements. However, both civil and criminal defamation laws can be misused to stifle public discourse. In recent years, India has seen a surge in defamation cases, suggesting such misuse.
Essentials of defamation
- Defamatory Nature of the Statement: A statement must be defamatory, judged by how it is perceived by the general public. In Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy (2006), the Delhi High Court found Swamy’s claims that Jethmalani received funding from a banned organization for supporting the Chief Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to be defamatory.
- Relevance to the Plaintiff: The statement must directly concern the plaintiff and demonstrate false disparagement. In T.V. Rama Subba Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohindeen (1971), the Madras High Court held that although the defendants were found liable, they did not intend to harm the plaintiff, whose reputation suffered due to claims about smuggling involving a business similar to his.
- Public Disclosure of the Statement: The defamatory statement must be made public. In Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad (1958), the defendant was held liable for sending a letter in Urdu, which the plaintiff did not understand. The letter, read by others, contained false allegations that caused the plaintiff distress, thereby constituting a significant case of defamation due to its public nature.
Criminal Defamation
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal defamation as follows: “Whoever, through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes any statement about a person with the intent to harm, or knowing that such a statement will likely harm, that person’s reputation, is considered to have defamed that person, except in certain specified cases.”
This offense comprises three essential elements:
- Making or Publishing Imputations: Any statement made or published about another person.
- Method of Communication: The imputations must be conveyed through spoken words, written text, signs, or visual representations.
- Intent or Knowledge: The statement must be made intentionally or with knowledge, or a reasonable belief, that it will harm the individual’s reputation.
Key Cases in Criminal Defamation
- Mobashar Jawed Akbar vs. Priya Ramani (2021): Journalist-turned-politician Mr. Akbar sued journalist Ms. Ramani for defamation after she accused him of sexual harassment in a 2017 Vogue article. In 2018, she named him on Twitter as the alleged predator, prompting Akbar’s lawsuit. The Delhi District Court ruled in February 2021 that her tweets were not defamatory, acknowledging prior instances of Akbar’s misconduct and affirming women’s rights to speak out under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Akbar’s appeal was later accepted by the Delhi High Court in January 2022.
- Vijay & Rajendra Darda v. Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta (2022): The Bombay High Court dismissed defamation complaints against Vijay and Rajendra Darda of Lokmat Media for reporting on a police FIR against the complainant. The court held that the publisher isn’t required to verify the FIR’s accuracy before publication, emphasizing that true reporting is vital for democracy.
- Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022): The Supreme Court quashed a criminal defamation case against India Today editor-in-chief Aroon Purie, stating that he was not specifically implicated in the allegations. However, the case against journalist Saurabh Shukla remained, with the court noting that whether his actions were justified was a matter for trial.
Libel and Slander
Communication plays a crucial role in defamation cases, as a third party must be aware of the defamatory statement for it to qualify as defamation. It is defined as the publication of a remark that harms an individual’s reputation.
- Libel: Defamation through written words, which is permanent.
- Slander: Defamation through spoken words or gestures, which is temporary.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary v. Cheguri Venkat Laxma Reddy (2018), clarified this distinction. While slander originated in common law, libel serves as a broader term for defamation globally. Both require publication, but they differ primarily in the medium used for the defamatory material.
Civil Defamation
Unlike criminal defamation, which is governed by statute, civil defamation is a tort law developed through judicial decisions. It typically pertains to libel, where a published statement harms a person’s reputation. To sue for damages, the following criteria must be met:
- The statement must be derogatory.
- The plaintiff must be the subject of the statement.
- The statement must be made public.
In Bonnard v. Perryman (1891), the court affirmed its authority to issue injunctions against libel publication, emphasizing that such injunctions should be granted only in clear cases. If a defendant indicates they can defend against the libel, an injunction should not be issued if the court is not convinced otherwise.
The legality of civil defamation was examined in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), where the Supreme Court referenced the US Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). This case highlighted the balance between free expression and civil defamation, noting that common law defamation should not unduly limit the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Key Differences Between Civil and Criminal Defamation
- Sanctions: Civil defamation results in monetary damages, while criminal defamation can lead to imprisonment, fines, or both.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.
- Intent: Only criminal defamation requires proof of intent or knowledge; civil defamation does not.
Case Example: In D.P. Chowdhery v. K.M. Manjulata (AIR 1997 Raj 170), the Rajasthan High Court held newspaper employees liable for publishing a false claim that a 17-year-old had eloped, despite their defense of relying on a credible source. The court ruled that their failure to verify the information constituted negligence, harming the plaintiff’s reputation.
Defenses Against Defamation
Defamation can be addressed in both civil and criminal courts, but there are several defenses:
- Justification or Truth: Truth is a complete defense against defamation. If the statement is true, the defendant cannot be held liable, even if they believed it to be true.
- Fair Comment: This defense allows for criticism as long as it falls within reasonable bounds of opinion, not necessarily what an ordinary person would deem fair.
- Privilege: While not a defense to defamation itself, certain individuals (like judges or parliamentarians) enjoy absolute or qualified privilege, meaning they cannot be sued for defamatory statements made in their official capacity.
Exceptions Not Considered as Defamation
- Truth for Public Good: Statements made for the public interest that are true are not considered defamation, though the necessity of such statements may be debated.
- Public Servants’ Conduct: Opinions expressed about a public servant’s actions in their official capacity, given in good faith, are not defamatory.
- Public Questions: Opinions on a person’s conduct related to public issues are exempt from defamation.
- Court Proceedings: Publishing truthful reports of court proceedings is not defamation.
- Case Merits and Witness Conduct: Expressing good-faith opinions on a court case’s merits or the behavior of witnesses is not considered defamation.
- Public Performances: Opinions on public performances, given in good faith with the author’s consent, are exempt.
- Authorized Censure: Censure expressed in good faith by someone with lawful authority over another is not defamation.
- Good Faith Accusations: Accusations made in good faith to authorized persons are not deemed defamatory.
- Protective Imputations: Statements made in good faith to protect one’s or another’s interests are not considered defamation.
Remedies Available Under Indian Law
In India, defamation provides remedies in both civil and criminal contexts:
- Civil Law: Defamation falls under tort law, allowing the victim to sue for damages. Claims must be filed within three years of gaining knowledge of the defamation.
- Criminal Law: Defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable, and compoundable offense, covered under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
For criminal defamation, a private complaint is filed with a Judicial Magistrate. In civil defamation, victims can approach the competent court for monetary compensation, either where the defendant resides or where the statement was made, as per Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Court fees vary by state and depend on the compensation claimed.
Defamation And Freedom Of Speech In The Indian Constitution
Under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right, including for defamation. The Supreme Court has established that any restriction must be “narrowly drawn” to be considered reasonable.
The interpretation of Article 19(1) has expanded to include freedom of the press, but it remains subject to limitations for public order, contempt of court, and national interest. Defamation laws, codified in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, enable both civil and criminal actions against statements made with the intent to harm someone’s reputation.
The debate around defamation has intensified, especially concerning how it intersects with freedom of expression. There is concern that broad defamation laws may lead to self-censorship, hindering legitimate speech.
Case Laws on Defamation and Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India
- The Supreme Court recognized freedom of expression as a “highly treasured value” under the Constitution.
- It emphasized that the right to free speech, while broad, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
- The Court affirmed that an individual’s reputation is integral to the right to life under Article 21, stating, “One’s reputation cannot be sacrificed for another’s right to free speech.”
- The Court distinguished between permissible criticism and defamatory attacks, allowing the former while rejecting the latter.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
- This landmark ruling served as a significant check on state overreach regarding free speech.
- The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, deeming it unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) and not being justified under Article 19(2).
- The Court stated that Section 66A was so broadly defined that it could suppress virtually any opinion, leading to a chilling effect on free speech.
- Additionally, the Court clarified Section 79, which addresses “intermediary liability,” stating that intermediaries are not liable for third-party content hosted on their platforms.
Chintaman Rao vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
- The Supreme Court clarified that “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) must be applied with careful consideration for public interest.
Conclusion
The concept of defamation remains complex and divisive, often misused, and can have a profound negative impact on individuals’ lives. While judicial precedents have aimed to clarify some issues, fundamental constitutional questions regarding both criminal and civil defamation are still unresolved. Freedom of speech and defamation laws must coexist harmoniously; neither should undermine the other. Legislators should adapt their understanding of defamation to reflect contemporary realities, promoting flexible legal provisions instead of adhering to a rigid framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is civil and criminal defamation in India?
Defamation is recognized as both a civil and criminal offense in India. Civil defamation is governed by tort law, allowing the aggrieved individual to seek damages. Criminal defamation, regulated by the Indian Penal Code of 1860, is addressed in Sections 499 and 500. It is a compoundable and non-cognizable offense, subject to bail, and can result in a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. - Is defamation bailable or non-bailable?
Defamation is a bailable offense, provided that the witness can support the petitioner’s case during the trial. - Is defamation a criminal offense?
Yes, defamation is both a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment, and a civil offense, where damages can be awarded. Criminal defamation is governed by the Indian Penal Code, while civil defamation falls under tort law. - How do I file a defamation case in India?
To file a defamation complaint, approach a magistrate who will direct the police to investigate, initiating a criminal trial. For a civil suit, the plaintiff must file a plaint in the civil court under Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. - Is name-calling defamation?
Name-calling can be considered defamation. If done in writing, it is termed libel; if spoken, it is called slander. Making false statements that harm someone’s reputation can lead to legal repercussions. - Can someone defame without using words?
Simply saying or gesturing something does not constitute defamation unless it harms the person’s reputation. - Can truth be a defense in a defamation case in India?
Yes, truth can serve as a defense. If the defendant proves the statement is true and made for the public good, they may avoid liability. - Can a public figure sue for defamation in India?
Yes, public figures can sue for defamation but must prove that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice, indicating the defendant knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Author: Prachi, Law Centre II Faculty of Law DU