Defamation Laws in India
A man’s reputation is a property more valuable than other property. Every man has the right to protect his reputation as he shall protect his other properties. Defamation, in plain words, means injury to one’s reputation. Defamation, in other words, may be termed as letting other people know besides the person who is being defamed about the matter which would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking person. This ultimately may lead other people to discourage the plaintiff’s company or association with him.
In Vishwanat V. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal[1], this Court observed that reputation which is not only the salt of life but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. While discussing defamation in the Indian context it is significant to mention that, Rajiv Gandhi government proposed a defamation bill. However, Defamation Bill, 1988 received widespread criticism from the media and opposition parties due to its draconian provisions and therefore it was struck down. In the present times, Defamation in India can be broadly classified into civil and a criminal offence. In Civil Law, defamation falls under the Law of Torts, which imposes punishment in the form of damages awarded to the claimant. Under Criminal Law, Defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable offence
THE TORT OF DEFAMATION-
The tort of defamation protects the interest, in his reputation which everybody enjoys. Therefore one cannot say it is tort unless there has been a communication of the defamatory matter to a third party. For it is the opinion held by the person defamed by others that matters. Insult directed to the plaintiff himself do not in themselves constitute defamation, the tort is not primarily concerned with the wounded feelings of the plaintiff. In England, there lie two types of defamation. One is ‘libel’, in which the defamatory statements are made in some permanently visible form such as writing, effigies, pictures or printing. Another part is ‘slander’ in which the statement is made by some spoken words or transitory form whether visible or audible such as hissing, gestures or such other things. The real test of differentiation lies in the choice of medium used for defamation. In India according to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code however, libel and slander are both crimes but under Indian Penal Code slander is considered more serious offence than that of libel. Slander has huge potentials of breaching the peace, which is on the other hand very less compared to libel.
In civil one might come across words like Insult and defamation and may use insult and defamation interchangeably but there lies a minute difference between the two terms. Insult is wrong done to regard or self-esteem in which one is held by the others while defamation is an injury only to one’s dignity or self-respect. Defamation requires publication to the third person whereas insult may consist in abusing a person only in his presence. To put in simple words in an action of defamation one has to fulfil certain essentials such as-
i. The statement must be defamatory.[2]
ii. The said statement must refer to the plaintiff.[3]
iii. The statement must be published i.e., communicated to at least one person other than the claimant.[4]
CRIMINAL SUIT-
An intention to defame is an important element under a criminal suit. In the absence of intention, the knowledge that the publication was likely to defame or is defamatory becomes essential. All this is further subject to the normal standard of proof in criminal cases: beyond a reasonable doubt. Defamation under a criminal suit can be discussed under various heads such as-
- Chapter XXI sections 499–502 protects an individual’s / person’s reputation.
- Section 124A includes defamation against the state [Sedition]
- Section 153 of the Code provides for defamation of a class
- Section 295A deals with hate speech with regards to outraging religious sentiments.
According to section 499 of IPC, ‘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 expected, to defame that person.’This section is subjected to ten exceptions. Further, section 500 states that “whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with fine or with both. Such an offence is non-cognizable and bailable. These sections were on a greater level challenged in Dr Subramanian Swamy judgement[5], where the question was-
- -whether criminalising defamation is an excessive restriction on freedom of speech, and other,
- -whether the criminal defamation law under Sections 499 and 500 is vaguely phrased and hence arbitrary.
The court held that the Sections 499 and section 500 were not ambiguously worded rather the word had its own independent identity. The court held defamation as a public wrong thereby declaring section 499 as not an excessive restriction under Article 19(2). It held that criminal defamation is not a disproportionate restriction on free speech, because the protection of reputation is a fundamental right as well as a human right. The identity of right to reputation as a part of the right to life under Article 21 was once again reiterated. One of the important aspects of this case was when the court upheld that the criminal defamation under section 199 CrPC is not a violation of Art. 19(1) as the Article involved public interest and not that of an individual.
SECTION 199 OF CrPC-
Section 199 of CrPC opens the door for public servants to file a complaint in a sessions court through a public prosecutor for alleged defamatory comments on their official conduct. This section extends its protection only for their official conducts and not for any other reason. There cannot be defamatory attacks on them because of the discharge of their due functions but it is important that they should be able to face reasonable criticism.
