Introduction
Defamatory remarks are those that do harm to the reputation of a third person. Defamation is a tort that covers both slander (spoken comments) and libel (written statements). Defamation actions are governed by statute and common law in each state.1 The plaintiff must have to demonstrate four elements in order to establish prima facie defamation:
Elements of Defamation
- A false statement presented as truth;
- the statement being published or communicated to a third party;
- carelessness or at least a reasonable level of blame; and
- damages or some injury to the reputation of the person or entity that is the subject of the statement.2
Public Figure Defamation Cases
Talking about public figure defamation cases, in general, a public figure is someone who has taken on a prominent role in society or who has willingly or unwillingly put themselves into the public eye, such as a public figure in government or the media, or even someone who is at the centre of a controversy. In order to successfully prosecute a defamation case, public figures must demonstrate that the defendant acted with deliberate malice or careless disregard for the truth while disseminating a false statement.3
Section 199 of Indian Penal Code
Section 199 of Indian Penal Code is as follows:
“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, r knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”
Defamation plays an important role in maintaining dignity and respect of individual in society at large. However, in a democratic state like India, every individual is also granted the right to free speech and expression in fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Article 19 (1) (A) of The Constitution
Article 19 (1) (A) of the constitution is as follows:
“(1) All citizens shall have the right- (a) to freedom of speech and expression;”
Internet and the Scope of Defamation
The expansive accessibility provided by the Internet has undoubtedly increased the ability of users to disseminate their ideas and opinions to wider audiences. Here comes the controversy as to which extend a citizen has right to criticize, claim some defamatory remarks on other and from where the torts of defamation start, which the author will discuss and analyze with help of case-laws and judgements in the present project.
Analysis
It’s not always easy to distinguish between speech intended for public conversation and communication intended to denigrate or harass someone. The introduction demonstrated how the anonymity of the Internet frequently acts as a trigger for some speakers to join in worthwhile conversation that they would not have otherwise. Courts should be cautious about allowing a large compensation for defamation because it might be difficult to distinguish between valuable and malicious speech. Courts should abandon the public figure concept in favour of a more modern approach in order to defend the Constitution, as the latter fails to fully address the intricate problems that arise from online anonymous expression.
Both Civil And Criminal Law Consider Defamation To Be An Offense
Both civil and criminal law consider defamation to be an offense. In civil law, defamation is punished by the Law of Torts, which imposes a fine that will be given to the plaintiff in the form of damages. As per the Criminal code, defamation is a non-cognizable, compoundable, and bailable offense. Thus, a magistrate’s arrest warrant is the only legal basis for a police officer to make an arrest. The Indian Penal Code imposes fines, simple imprisonment for a maximum of two years, or both as penalties for the offense.
Penalties Overview (Civil vs Criminal)
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Civil Defamation | Law of Torts → Fine paid as damages to plaintiff |
| Criminal Defamation | Non-cognizable, compoundable, bailable; Fine or imprisonment up to 2 years or both |
Criminal Suit Requirements
It is essentially a defamation for which a sentence of simple jail may be imposed. A criminal suit requires that there be a deliberate attempt to slander. It is imperative that the claim be made with the malicious purpose to defame someone else, or at the very least, with knowledge that the publication is likely to do so. The act’s intent to harm another person’s reputation must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
Indian Penal Code: Definition Under Section 499
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines defamation and lists its limitations under Section 499. words or signals attributed with the intention of harming someone or knowing that doing so would result in harm. If something is spoken about a deceased person that would have damaged their reputation if they were still living, it might be considered defamation.
Importance of Reputation
- It is beneficial for everyone to maintain a good name.
- Damage to such an investment can be legally addressed.
- Defamation laws have been enacted to stop individuals from abusing their right to freedom of speech and expression.
- This is true that in India there is no difference between libel and slander.
- If written publication of the incident had not taken place, opportunities for defaming others and legal loopholes would have arisen.
Supreme Court Judgement on Constitutionality
The Supreme Court has held that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is fully valid and dismissed Subramanian Swami’s petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 499. The judiciary interpreted Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as a surety for “life and personal liberty” against any invasion by state organs which also encompasses Right to Reputation.
When Article 21 is used as a sword to defame or destroy one’s personality, it can be seen as one of the major threats to constitutional rights in future. However, while balancing the Right to Free Speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Court opined that Right to Reputation (Art. 21) must also be taken into account.
Reasonable Restrictions — Case Reference
In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Rao, it has been held in unequiocal terms that “The Supreme Court defined the terms “reasonable restrictions” as those stipulated in Article 19 (2). In the best interests of the general public, it indicates thoughtful consideration and decision.”
Court’s View on Balancing Rights
The court reached the following decisions about defamation, freedom of expression, and reputation. As it is illegal to compromise someone’s integrity and character in order to restrict their right to free speech and expression, there should be harmony and balance between these two rights. Even when the petitioner in the aforementioned publishing industry defamation case is well-known, they do not grant the author or publisher permission to disparage them.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
“The legality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 became mentioned through the Supreme Court of India within the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). Shreya Singhal, a regulation scholar, commenced the petition, which contested the statute’s legality since it violated the fundamental proper to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by way of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Citing Section 66A’s ambiguity, overbreadth, and propensity to restriction unfastened expression, the splendid court declared the law unconstitutional in a landmark choice on March 24, 2015. In order to prevent the abuse of kingdom authority, this ruling emphasized the crucial want of defensive loose speech inside the virtual age and the need for strictly designated speech limits.”
Subramanian Swamy and the Union of India (2016)
“Congress MP Rahul Gandhi filed a petition against political figure Subramanian Swamy, which was heard by the Delhi High Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Rahul Gandhi. Union of India (2016), on remarks made by Swamy at a political rally that Gandhi considered blasphemous. Rahul Gandhi filed a criminal complaint against Swamy under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in its judgment of December 10, 2016, the Delhi High Court rejected Gandhi’s appeal against Gandhi’s nomination, saying that Swamy’s public remarks as part of a political debate did not as a purposeful attack on Gandhi’s character.”
Court’s View on Defamation Test
The author is principally accountable for such information if it is judged to be defamatory and calumnious, according to the court’s ruling on the defamation test, which is exclusively based on the opinions of the original author.
| Aspect | Key Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Responsibility | Author solely responsible for defamatory content |
| Evaluation Basis | Based on original author’s opinions |
| Context | Political debate remarks not automatically defamatory |
Conclusion
The right to freedom of expression is one of the most precious assets of Indian democracy and is regarded as an indisputable necessity. This is the reason why criminal and libel laws are challenged on the fringes of the legal framework of freedom of expression. However, like other rights, it is subject to certain reasonable limitations, enumerated in Article 19(6) of the Constitution. This right cannot be elevated to a point where it utterly denigrates the reputation of the other, nor can it be compromised in the process of protecting the rights of the other.
- Freedom of expression is essential but not absolute
- Reputation of others must also be protected
- Legal restrictions must be reasonable and narrow
Recognizing the tendency to think of public communication as conversational, or at least to think of meaningful discourse as formally dependent on the conversation, can help identify elements with common linguistic significance comes the idea is that public communication should look like or resemble a conversation. The longest and most accepted way to approach public discourse is as an open dialogue that ends in consensus.
The Supreme Court should rethink how it deals with people in the public eye online. Just because someone chose to be known publicly doesn’t mean criticism of them always requires proof the writer was trying to lie. Many people share things online without expecting huge attention. Also, the Court should be careful stopping all lawsuits from those who didn’t choose fame, if the criticism discusses something the public cares about. Overall, the rules made for TV and newspapers may need adjusting for how much sharing occurs on the Internet without planning to be famous.
