Defamation

Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. When a person injures the reputation of another person, he is said to have
committed a Tort of defamation. A man's reputation is his most valuable property. English law divides actions for
defamation into libel and slander.

Slander is the publication of a defamatory statement in a form of spoken words or gestures. slander is addressed to the ear.
Libel is representation made in permanent form e.g. writing, printing, pictures, effigy or statue. Libel is address to the eye.

Indian law: It is to be noted that under English criminal law, a distinction is made between libel and slander. There, libel is
a crime but slander is not. Slander is only a civil wrong in England. Criminal law in India does not make any distinction
between libel and slander. Both libel and slander are criminal offences under section 499, I.P.C.

English Law:- The distinction between libel and slander is material for two reasons:

(1) Under Criminal law, only libel has been recognised as an offence. Slander is no offence.

(2) Under the law of torts, slander is actionable, save in exceptional cases, only on proof of special damage. Libel is always
actionable per se, i.e., without the proof of any damage.

In the following four exceptional cases, slander is also actionable per se:

(i) Imputation of criminal offence to the plaintiff;

(ii) Imputation of a contagious or a infectious disease to the plaintiff, which has the effect of preventing other from
associating with the plaintiff;

(iii) Imputation that a person is incompetent, dishonest or unfit in regard to the office, profession, calling, trade or business
carried on 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.
Essentials of Defamation:
1. The statement must be defamatory.

2. The defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff.

3. The statement must be published.

(i) The statement must be defamatory: Defamatory statement always injures the reputation of the plaintiff in the
estimation of right thinking members of society who in return avoid contact with the plaintiff. This results in disgrace,
humiliation to the plaintiff. The defamation statement could be made oral, in writing, printing, picture, status or effigy or by
some conduct. Whether a statement defamatory or not depends upon how the right thinking members of the society are
likely to take it. Here, the right-thinking members of the society means men of fair intelligence. The essence of defamation
is injury to person’s character or reputation. For e.g. in D.P choudhary V Manjulata, A news item was published about
her that she ran away with a boy X. The news item was untrue and published with an utter irresponsibility and without any
justification. She sued the defendant on the grounds that it affected her marriage prospects. It was held the statement was
defamatory and hence defendant is liable and asked to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
Words which merely injures the feelings or cause annoyance to a person are not actionable. Vulgar abuses which only hurt
man's pride but it actually reflect no bad character or reputation. It means no action for damages can lie for mere an insult.
If insulting words cause ridicule and humiliation, they are actionable. For e.g. in Ramdhara Vs Phulwati bai, the
plaintiff, Phulwati bai a widow of the 45 years instituted a suit against Mr. Ramdhara who made an imputation that
Phulwati bai is a keep of maternal uncle of her daughter-in-law. It was held that it is not a mere vulgar abuse but a definite
imputation on her chastity and thus it is defamation.

The Innuendo: It means the statement appears to be innocent but its latent or secondary meaning is defamatory. For e.g.
the statement is that A is like his father may be defamatory if it is meant to convey the wrong impression that he is a cheat
like his father.
Intention to defame is not necessary. It is immaterial that there was no intention to defame the other person. If the words are
defamatory that injures the reputation of a person, the intention of not doing the same, does not matter. For e.g., A lady has
given a birth to a child is a defamatory when the lady is unmarried. It is defamation because it spoils the reputation of lady
in the eyes of the other people. For another instance that Mr. and Mrs. A, has given birth to twins but in realty they got
married two months back though the defendant was ignored of this fact. He will be held liable for it.

In Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons, there was a dispute between the defendants, henty & Sons, and one of
the branch managers of the plaintiff bank. The defendants who used to receive cheques drawn on various branches of the
Capital and Counties Bank sent a circular letter to a large number of their customers as follows: “ Henty & Sons hereby
give notice that they will not receive payment in cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and counties Bank. “
The circular became known to various other persons also and there was a run on the bank. The bank sued Henty & Sons for
libel alleging that the circular implied an insolvency of the Bank. Held, that the words of the circular taken in their natural
sense did not convey the supposed imputation and the reasonable people would not understand it in the sense of the
innuendo suggested. There was, therefore, no libel.

Intention to defame is not necessary: When the words are considered to be defamatory by the persons to whom the
statement is published, there is defamation, even though the person making the statement believed it to be innocent. It is
immaterial that the defendants did not know of the facts because of which a statement otherwise innocent is considered to
be defamatory.

In Morrison v. Ritihie & Co., the defendants in good faith published a mistaken statement that the plaintiff had given birth
to twins. The plaintiff had been married only two months back. Even though the defendants were ignorant of this fact, they
were held liable.

2. The statement must refer to the plaintiff: In defamation the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statement
referred to him. If the person can reasonably proves that the defamatory statement referred to him, the defendant is liable to
him.

Defamation of class of persons: When the words refer to a group of individuals or a class of person, no member of that
group or class can sue unless he can prove that the defamatory words are referring to him only. For instance if a man
publishes that all lawyers are thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless he proves that the intention was to defame
him particularly.

3. The statement must be published: Sending the defamatory letter to the plaintiff in a language supposed to be known to
the plaintiff only is no defamation at all. If a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for plaintiff, the defendant is not
liable. For example when a father reads his son's letter. But when the defamatory letter is sent with wrong intention that the
letter is likely to be read by somebody else, the defendant can be held liable for it. For example defamatory matter is
contained in a post card or a telegram. For e.g. in Mahendra Ram Vs Harnander Prasad, the defendant sent a defamatory
letter in Urdu to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not know Urdu. So, he went to the third person. It was held that the
defendant was not liable unless the plaintiff proves that the defendant knew that the Urdu was not known to him.

Repetition of the defamatory matter:- The liability of the person who repeats a defamatory matter arises in the same way
as that of the originator, because every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Not only the
author of the defamatory matter is liable but its editor, printer or publisher would also be liable in the same way. Their
liability is strict. There is another class of persons who might disseminate the matter without knowing its contents, e.g.,
booksellers, newspaper-vendors or librarians. The law adopts a lenient attitude towards them. They are not liable if:
(i) they did not know, or

(ii) inspite of reasonable diligence could not have known that what they were circulating was defamatory.

Communication between husband and wife: In the eyes of law, the husband and wife are one person and communication
of defamatory matter from husband to wife or vise versa is no publication. Hence, it is no defamation.

Defences in an action for defamation are:

1. Justifications or Truth.
2. Fair Comment
3. Privilege, which may be either absolute or qualified.

(i) Justification or Truth:

In a civil law truth or justification is complete defence to the defamatory matter. The
reason is that law will not permit a man to recover damages of an injury to the character or reputation, which he does not
possess. The defence is available even though the publication is made maliciously. The defence will be available, if the
statement is substantially true but incorrect in respect of minor particulars. For e.g. in Alexander Vs North Eastern Rly,
the plaintiff was sentenced a fine of 1 pound or 14 days imprisonment because of traveling on a train without appropriate
ticket. The defendant published a notice that the plaintiff has been sentenced a fine of 1 pound or 3 weeks imprisonment. It
was held that defendant was not liable because the statement is substantially true.

(ii) Fair Comment:

Making fair comment on matters of public interest is a defence to defamation. The following
essentials are required.
1. It must be a comment.
2. The comment must be fair, and
3. The matter should be of public interest.

i. It must be comment: It means an expression of opinion in good faith. For e.g. A says Z's book is indecent. I did not like
it.
ii. The comment be fair: It means that it should be based on true facts. For example A says that B is a dishonest man and
published B's act of dishonesty in the newspaper but A should have some proof of B’s dishonesty so that he can justify his
statement in the newspaper.

iii. The matter should be of public interest: Administration of Govt. Deptt., Public companies, courts, conduct of
minister etc. is considered to be matters of public interest.

3. Privileges: There are two kinds of privileges

(i) Absolute privilege

(ii) Qualified privilege

(i) Absolute Privilege: In case of absolute privilege no action lies for the defamatory statement though the statement is
false or made maliciously. In these cases, the public interest demands that an individual right to reputation should give way
to the freedom of speech. Absolute privilege is recognized in following cases.
(a) Parliamentary Proceedings
(b) Judicial Proceedings
(c) State Communications
d) Military or naval proceedings.
e) Judicial Report
 ii) Qualified Privilege: In certain cases, the defence of qualified privilege is also available to the defendant. It is
necessary that the statement must be made without malice and there must be an occasion for making the statement.

The plea can be taken in the following cases:

1. Communication made in the course of duty under the circumstances that the defendant has to disclose the facts to third
person. The duty may be legal, moral or social. For example, Communication made to third person regarding the character
of the servant, confidential information, and information as to crime because he has a social duty towards the society.

2. Communications made in the cases of confidential relationship: A confidential relationship exists between husband
and wife, father and son, guardian and minor, or master and servant: any communication between them would not amount
to defamation because of the qualified privilege.

3. Information as to crime or misconduct of others: When it comes to knowledge of any one that a crime has been
committed, That person under duty to inform what he knows and believes, he cannot be subjected to an action for damages
merely because it turns out that the person about whom he has given the information, is absolved of the charges.
Difference between Libel and Slander.
Libel differs from slander in several respects-
Libel Slander
1. Libel is addressed to the eye 1. Slander is addressed to the ear.

2. In English law libel is a criminal offence as well as a civil 2. Slander is a civil wrong only.
wrong

3. In libel the law presumes that the person defamed has 3. Slander is actionable only when special damage can be
suffered damage proved to have been its natural consequence, or when it
conveys certain imputation.

4. In libel the defamatory matter is in some permanent form 4. Slander is in its nature transient.

5. In Libel shows greater deliberation and raises a suggestion 5. Slander may be uttered in the heat of the moment and
of malice under a sudden provocation.

6. The actual publisher of a libel may be an innocent person 6. In every case of republication of a slander, the publisher
and therefore not libel acts consciously and voluntarily and must necessarily be
guilty.

7. Under the English law, period of limitation for an action 7. Under the English law, period of limitation for an action
of libel is six years. However, in India the period of of slander is two years. However, in India the period of
limitation is one year for both. limitation is one year for both.