INDIAN PENAL CODE

DEFAMATION

SARANDEEP SINGH

ROLL NUMBER- 50

B. A. Ll. B. (SF)

SEMESTER- 4

1
 INDEX

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW

TYPES

SLANDER

LIBEL

SCANDALUM MAGNATUM

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

EARLY INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

HISTORY

DEFENSES

TRUTH

BENEFIT AND VINDICTIVENESS

DIFFERENT DEFENSES

2
 INTRODUCTION

Maligning, slander, denunciation, or traducement is the correspondence of a bogus articulation

that hurts the notoriety of, contingent upon the law of the nation, an individual, business, item,
gathering, government, religion, or country. Under custom-based law, to establish maligning, a
case should by and large be false and probably been made to somebody other than the individual
criticized. Some customary law locales additionally recognize spoken criticism, called
defamation, and slander in other media, for example, printed words or pictures, called slander.

False light laws secure against articulations which are not in fact false, yet which are deluding.

In some considerate law wards, slander is treated as a wrongdoing as opposed to a common off-
base. The United Nations Human Rights Committee decided in 2012 that the criticism law of one
nation, the Philippines, was conflicting with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, just as asking that "State parties [to the Covenant] ought to think about the
decriminalization of defamation". In Saudi Arabia, criticism of the state, or a past or present
ruler, is culpable under psychological warfare enactment.

An individual who stigmatizes another might be known as a "defamer", "libeler", "slanderer", or

once in a while a "famacide". The term criticism is gotten from the Latin libellus (truly "little
book" or "booklet").

REVIEW

Starting at 2017, something like 130 UNESCO Member States held criminal maligning laws. In
2017, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office of the
Representative on Freedom of the Media issued a report on criminal maligning and against
profanation laws among its Member States, which found that criticism is condemned in almost
75% of the 57 OSCE taking an interest States. 1

A large number of the laws relating to maligning incorporate explicit arrangements for harsher
discipline for discourse or productions incredulous of heads of state, open authorities, state
bodies and the State itself. The OSCE report additionally noticed that irreverence and religious
affront laws exist in around 33% of OSCE taking an interest States; huge numbers of these
1
Nicola C. David Price, Defamation Law, Procedure and Practice 2017.

3
consolidate disrespect and additionally religious affront with components of loathe discourse
enactment.

In Africa, something like four Member States decriminalized criticism somewhere in the range
of 2012 and 2017. The decision by the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights in Lohé Issa
Konaté v. the Republic of Burkina Faso set a point of reference in the district against detainment
as a real punishment for slander, characterizing it as an infringement of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the arrangement of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Nations in each area have moved to propel the criminalization of criticism by stretching out
enactment to online substance. Cybercrime and against fear based oppression laws go all through
the world have prompted bloggers showing up under the steady gaze of courts, with some
serving time in jail.

The United Nations, OSCE, Organization of American States (OAS) and African Commission
on Human and Peoples' Rights Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression expressed in a
joint revelation in March 2017 that 'general forbiddances on the scattering of data dependent on
obscure and vague thoughts, including "false news" or "non-target data", are contradictory with
global benchmarks for confinements on opportunity of expression...and ought to be canceled.

TYPES

SLANDER

The common law starting points of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (unsafe explanation in
a transient structure, particularly discourse) and "libel", every one of which gives a common law
right of action.

Defamation is the general term utilized universally, and is utilized in this article where it isn't
important to recognize "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require production. The
essential refinement among libel and slander lies exclusively in the structure in which the
defamatory issue is distributed. In the event that the culpable material is distributed in some

4
temporary structure, as by spoken words or sounds, communication via gestures, motions or
something like that, at that point it is slander.

LIBEL

Libel is characterized as defamation by composed or printed words, pictures, or in any structure

other than by verbally expressed words or motions. The law of libel started in the seventeenth
century in England. With the development of production came the development of libel and
improvement of the tort of libel.

Cases including libel

An early case of libel is the situation of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was contracted to
distribute New York Weekly Journal. When he printed another man's article that reprimanded
William Cosby, who was then British Royal Governor of Colonial New York, Zenger was
blamed for subversive libel. The decision was returned as Not Guilty on the charge of rebellious
libel, since it was demonstrated that every one of the announcements Zenger had distributed
about Cosby had been valid, so there was not an issue of defamation. Another case of libel is the
situation of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).2

The U.S. Preeminent Court overruled a State court in Alabama that had discovered The New
York Times blameworthy of libel for printing a commercial that censured Alabama authorities
for abusing understudy social equality activists. Despite the fact that some of what The Times
printed was false, the Court governed to support its, saying that libel of an open authority
requires evidence of actual perniciousness, which was characterized as a "knowing or neglectful
dismissal for reality".

Demonstrating libel

There are a few things an individual must demonstrate to set up that libel has occurred. In the
United States, an individual must demonstrate that 1) the announcement was false, 2) caused
damage, and 3) was made without sufficient examination into the honesty of the announcement.

2
V. Mitter, Law of Defamation & Malicious Prosecution Civil and Criminal with Model forms of Plaints and Defences
and Allied Legislations 2017.

5
These means are for a customary resident. For a big name or open authority, an individual must
demonstrate the initial three stages, and that the announcement was made with the plan to do hurt
or with careless dismissal for reality, which is generally explicitly alluded to as "actual
malevolence".

SCANDALUM MAGNATUM

At one time, the respect of companions was particularly ensured by the law; while defamation of
a commoner was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a friend (or of a Great Officer of
State) was called scandalum magnatum.

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Numerous countries have criminal punishments for defamation in certain circumstances, and
diverse conditions for deciding if an offense has happened. ARTICLE 19, a British free
articulation support gathering, has distributed worldwide maps diagramming the presence of
criminal defamation law over the globe, just as demonstrating nations that have unique securities
for political pioneers or functionaries of the state.

There can be territorial rules that may vary from the national standard. For instance, in the
United States, defamation is commonly restricted to the living. Be that as it may, there are 7
states (Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah) that have criminal
rules with respect to defamation of the dead.

The Organization for Security and Co-activity in Europe (OSCE) has likewise distributed an
itemized database on criminal and common defamation arrangements in 55 nations, including
every single European nation, all part nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the
United States and Canada.

In a 2012 managing on a grievance documented by a telecaster who had been detained for
abusing Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held that the
criminalization of libel without arrangement of an open figure regulation – as in Philippine

6
criminal law – damages opportunity of articulation and is conflicting with Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3

EARLY INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Inquiries of gathering libel share been showing up for all intents and purpose law for many years.
One of the soonest known instances of a litigant being striven for defamation of a gathering was
the situation of Rex v. Orme and Nutt (1700). For this situation, the jury found that the litigant
was liable of libeling a few subjects, however they didn't explicitly recognize who these subjects
were. A report of the case told that the jury trusted that "where a composing … denounces
against humanity all in all, or against a specific request of men, with respect to occurrence, men
of the outfit, this is no libel, however it must slide to points of interest and people to make it
libel." This jury trusted that just people who trusted they were explicitly slandered had a case to a
libel case. Since the jury was unfit to recognize the exact individuals who were being maligned,
there was no reason to distinguish the announcements were a libel.

Another early English gathering libel which has been habitually refered to is King v. Osborne
(1732). For this situation, the respondent was on preliminary "for printing a libel reflecting upon
the Portuguese Jews." The imprinting being referred to guaranteed that Jews who had touched
base in London from Portugal consumed a Jewish lady to death when she had a kid with a
Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's enemy of Semitic
distribution, a few Jews were assaulted.

At first, the judge appeared to trust the court could do nothing since no individual was singled
out by Osborne's compositions. In any case, the court inferred that "since the production
suggested the act was one Jews every now and again did, the entire network of Jews was
slandered." Though different reports of this case give contrasting records of the wrongdoing, this
report unmistakably demonstrates a decision dependent on gathering libel.

Since laws confining libel were acknowledged as of now on account of its inclination to prompt
a break of harmony, bunch libel laws were advocated in light of the fact that they demonstrated

3
Dario Millo, Defamation And Freedom Of Speech 2008.

7
potential for an equivalent or maybe more serious danger of savagery. Thus, bunch libel cases
are criminal despite the fact that most libel cases are affable torts.

HISTORY

From early occasions, individuals have fathomed defamatory and damaging explanations made
in an open way (convicium adversus bonos mores). The Praetorian Edict, arranged around 130
A.D., proclaimed that an action could be raised for yelling at somebody in spite of good ethics:
"qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve musical drama 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 declaration. As per Ulpian, not all yelling was
actionable. Drawing on the contention of Labeo, he attested that the offense comprised in yelling
in opposition to the ethics of the city ("adversus bonos mores huius civitatis") something adept to
get notoriety or disdain ("quae... advertisement infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret") the
individual uncovered thereto. 4

Any act adept to bring someone else into offensiveness offered ascend to an actio injurarum. In
such a case reality of the announcements was no legitimization for general society and offending
way in which they had been made. Be that as it may, even in open issues, the charged had the
chance to legitimize his actions by transparently expressing what he believed vital for open
wellbeing to be impugned by the libel, and turned out to be his attestations to be true. The second
head included defamatory articulations made in private, and for this situation the offense lay in
the substance of the attribution, not in the way of its distribution. The fact of the matter was
subsequently an adequate defense, for no man reserved an option to request legitimate security
for a bogus notoriety.

Roman law was gone for giving adequate extension for the exchange of a man's character, while
it shielded him from unnecessary affront and torment. The solution for verbal defamation was for
some time restricted to a common action for a financial punishment, which was assessed by the
criticalness of the case, and which, albeit pernicious in its character, without a doubt included
practically the component of remuneration. In any case, another cure was presented with the

4
Mathew Collins, The Law Of Defamation 2001.

8
augmentation of the criminal law, under which numerous sorts of defamation were rebuffed with
extraordinary seriousness.

In the meantime expanded significance joined to the distribution of defamatory books and
compositions, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we determine our advanced utilization of the
word libel; and under the later heads the last term came to be uncommonly connected to
unknown allegations or pasquils, the scattering of which was viewed as especially unsafe, and
chatted with serious discipline, regardless of whether the issue contained in them were valid or
false.

In Anglo-Saxon England, slander was rebuffed by removing the tongue.

DEFENSES

Regardless of whether an announcement is defamatory, there are conditions in which such

articulations are allowable in law.

TRUTH

In numerous legitimate frameworks, antagonistic open articulations about lawful natives

introduced as fact must be turned out to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous.[citation needed]
Proving unfavorable open character explanations to be genuine is frequently the best defense
against an arraignment for libel or defamation. Proclamations of feeling that can't be refuted
valid or will probably need to apply some other sort of defense. The utilization of the defense of
support has risks, be that as it may; in the event that the litigant libels the offended party and, at
that point runs the defense of truth and comes up short, he might be said to have exasperated the
damage. 5

Another imperative part of defamation is the distinction among fact and feeling. Proclamations
made as "facts" are every now and again actionable defamation. Articulations of feeling or
unadulterated assessment are not actionable. A few locales decrease to perceive any legitimate
refinement among fact and supposition. To win harms in a libel case, the offended party should
initially demonstrate that the announcements were "proclamations of fact or blended articulations
of feeling and fact" and second that these announcements were false. On the other hand, an
5
David Rolph, Defamation Law 2015.

9
ordinary defense to defamation is that the announcements are conclusion, depending on
supposition benefit.

One of the real tests to recognize whether an announcement is fact or sentiment is whether the
announcement can be refuted valid or in a court of law. In the event that the announcement can
be refuted valid or, at that point, on that premise, the case will be heard by a jury to decide if it is
valid or false. In the event that the announcement can't be refuted valid or, the court may reject
the libel case without it regularly heading off to a jury to discover facts for the situation.

Under English common law, demonstrating reality of the charge was initially a legitimate
defense just in common libel cases. Criminal libel was understood as an offense against the
general population everywhere dependent on the inclination of the libel to incite break of
harmony, as opposed to being a wrongdoing dependent on the actual defamation fundamentally;
its veracity was subsequently viewed as insignificant. Segment 6 of the Libel Act 1843 permitted
the turned out to be utilized as a legitimate defense in criminal libel cases, yet just if the litigant
likewise exhibited that distribution was for the "Open Benefit".

In certain frameworks, in any case, strikingly the Philippines, truth alone isn't a defense.

It is likewise important in these cases to demonstrate that there is a very much established open
enthusiasm for the particular data being broadly known, and this might be the situation
notwithstanding for open figures. Open intrigue is for the most part not "what the open is keen
on", but instead "what is in light of a legitimate concern for the public.”

Noonan v. Staples is at times refered to as point of reference that reality isn't generally a defense
to libel in the U.S., however the case is actually not substantial point of reference on that issue
since Staples did not contend First Amendment security, which is one hypothesis for truth as
total defense, for its statements. The court expected for this situation that the Massachusetts law
was sacred under the First Amendment without it being contended by the parties.

In a 2012 decision including Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights remarked, "Correctional defamation laws ought to incorporate defense of truth."

10
 BENEFIT AND VINDICTIVENESS

Benefit gives a total bar and answer to a defamation suit, however conditions may must be met
before this assurance is allowed. Benefit is any condition that legitimizes or pardons an at first
sight tort. It very well may be said that benefit perceives a litigant's action 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 reasonable rationale. While a few benefits have for
some time been perceived, the court may make another benefit for specific conditions – benefit
as a certifiable defense is a possibly regularly advancing teaching. Such recently made or by
chance perceived benefits are alluded to as leftover legitimization benefits.

There are two types of benefit in the common law custom:

"Outright benefit" has the impact that an announcement can't be sued on as defamatory,
regardless of whether it were made perniciously; a commonplace model is proof given in court
(in spite of the fact that this may offer ascent to various cases, for example, an action for
malevolent arraignment or prevarication) or proclamations made in a session of the lawmaking
body (known as 'Parliamentary benefit' in Commonwealth nations).

"Qualified benefit" might be accessible to the writer as a defense in conditions where it is viewed
as imperative that the facts be known in the open intrigue; a precedent would be open gatherings,
neighborhood government archives, and data identifying with open bodies, for example, the
police and local groups of fire-fighters. Another model would be that an educator – acting in
accordance with some basic honesty and genuineness – may compose an unsatisfactory letter of
reference with unsatisfactory data. Qualified benefit has a similar impact as supreme benefit, yet
does not secure explanations that can be demonstrated to have been made with malevolent
expectation.

DIFFERENT DEFENSES

Defenses to cases of defamation include:

Articulations made in a decent confidence and sensible conviction that they were genuine are
commonly regarded equivalent to genuine proclamations; in any case, the court may ask into the

11
sensibility of the conviction. The level of consideration expected will shift with the idea of the
respondent: a standard individual may securely depend on a solitary paper report, while the paper
would be required to painstakingly check various sources.

Sentiment is a defense perceived in almost every purview. In the event that the supposedly
defamatory attestation is a declaration of assessment instead of an announcement of fact,
defamation asserts for the most part can't be brought on the grounds that suppositions are
intrinsically not falsifiable. In any case, a few locales decay to perceive any legitimate
qualification among fact and assessment. The United States Supreme Court, specifically, has
decided that the First Amendment does not require acknowledgment of a feeling privilege.

Claimant is incapable of further defamation – e.g., the claimant's position in the community is
so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be
said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a
libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel,
that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.

Statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period
of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the
Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff
first learns of the communication.6

No Third-party communication: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof,

isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no
defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant
heard the false statement.

No actual injury: If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the
defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury,
and therefore, no recourse.

6
Randall Stephenson, A Crisis of Democratic Accountability: Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press
2018.

12
Slander per-se: is an exception to Slander (presume general damages). Slander per-se states that
an individual has:

1. A loathsome disease,

2. Business improprieties,

3. Committed a crime or have been in prison for a crime,

4. Committed sexual improprieties/impotent.

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not
actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm
someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the
absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.

Simple disgusting maltreatment is an affront that isn't really defamatory in light of the fact that it
isn't proposed to be taken actually or accepted, or liable to make genuine harm a notoriety.
Vituperative articulations made in annoyance, for example, calling somebody "an arse" amid an
intoxicated contention, would probably be viewed as unimportant profane maltreatment and not
defamatory.

Reasonable remark on a matter of open intrigue, contentions made with a legitimate faith in their
soundness on a matter of open intrigue, (for example, in regards to official acts) are defendable
against a defamation guarantee, regardless of whether such contentions are sensibly unsound; if a
sensible individual could sincerely engage such a conclusion, the announcement is ensured. In
the US reasonable remark is a common law defense, and it has been contended has been
supplanted by established defenses.

Assent is an uncommon defense and makes the case that the inquirer agreed to the spread of the
announcement.

13