This document provides a summary and analysis of defenses for the tort of defamation under Indian law. It begins with an introduction discussing the importance of reputation and how defamation law balances protection of reputation with freedom of speech. It then defines defamation and lists the essential elements that must be proven for a defamation claim. These include publication of a defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff. The document goes on to outline various defenses to defamation, including truth, privilege, and how defamation intersects with freedom of speech protections. It concludes by reiterating the balancing of interests between reputation and speech. The document appears to be a student paper providing an overview of defamation law defenses in India
This document provides a summary and analysis of defenses for the tort of defamation under Indian law. It begins with an introduction discussing the importance of reputation and how defamation law balances protection of reputation with freedom of speech. It then defines defamation and lists the essential elements that must be proven for a defamation claim. These include publication of a defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff. The document goes on to outline various defenses to defamation, including truth, privilege, and how defamation intersects with freedom of speech protections. It concludes by reiterating the balancing of interests between reputation and speech. The document appears to be a student paper providing an overview of defamation law defenses in India
This document provides a summary and analysis of defenses for the tort of defamation under Indian law. It begins with an introduction discussing the importance of reputation and how defamation law balances protection of reputation with freedom of speech. It then defines defamation and lists the essential elements that must be proven for a defamation claim. These include publication of a defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff. The document goes on to outline various defenses to defamation, including truth, privilege, and how defamation intersects with freedom of speech protections. It concludes by reiterating the balancing of interests between reputation and speech. The document appears to be a student paper providing an overview of defamation law defenses in India
Submitted by: AYUSHI DWIVEDI Semester III Section A Roll no. 47 Submitted on: 02/09/2014
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, for putting his trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver. Sir , thank you for an opportunity to help me grow. My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.
Ayushi Dwivedi Semester III Roll No: 47
3
CONTENT
Objectives...............................................................................4 Research Methodology...........................................................4 List of Abbreviations..............................................................5 Introduction............................................................................6 Meaning and Definitions of Defamation................................7 Essentials to the tort of Defamation.....................................8-9 Types of tort of Defamation..................................................10 Defences to the tort of Defamation..................................11-17 Defamation and Freedom of Speech................................18-19 Conclusion............................................................................20 References........................................................................21-22
4
OBJECTIVES To understand the meaning and essential ingredients of defamation. To briefly acknowledge the types of tort of defamation. To learn about the defences of defamation.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The present study is a doctrinal and descriptive study based on the critical review of both primary and secondary sources. Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic. Books and other references have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the sources.
5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And AIR All India Reporter e.g. Example v. Versus Ors. Others viz Namely i.e. That is Pvt. Private Ltd. Limited IPC Indian Penal Code
6
I. INTRODUCTION
A mans reputation is his property and is more valuable than any other tangible asset. Every man has the right to have his reputation preserved inviolate. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person as part of the personal security 1 . It is a jus in rem, a right good against the entire world. A mans reputation is his property more valuable than other property. 2 Indeed, if we reflect on the degree of suffering occasioned by loss of character, and compares it with that occasioned by loss of property; the amount of the former injury far exceeds that of the latter 3 . Defamation, as defined by some of the is the publication of a statement which reflects on a persons reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. 4
The law of defamation like many other branches of the law of Torts provides for balancing of interests. The competing interest which has to be balanced against the interest which a person has in his reputation is the interest which every person has in freedom of speech. The Law of Defamation provides defences to the wrong such as truth and privilege thus also protecting right of freedom of speech but at the same time marking the boundaries within which it may be limited. In India, tort law is obtained from British Common Law and is yet uncodified. Therefore the existing law relating to defamation places reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution and is saved by clause (2) of Article 19. As it is said A good name is better than precious ointment. The Holy Quran also says that the name with men are called by men on earth shall their name in Aljana.This stresses the importance of a having and protecting ones good name. It is therefore important, to ensure that one guides against any attempt at destroying a name and reputation one has worked tirelessly to build, and use every appropriate legal means to redeem it when defamed.
1 Blackstones Commentary of the Laws of England, Vol. 1 (IV Edition), p. 101 2 Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR 7 Eq 488 3 De Crespigny v. Wesllelley, (1829) 5 Bing 392 4 Ayesha, The Tort Of Defamation, http://jurisonline.in/2010/10/the-tort-of-defamation-an-analysis-of-the-law- in-india-and-the-united-kingdom/, Accessed on 31 st October, 2011 7
II. Meaning and Definitions of Defamation Defamation is the injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injuries the reputation of another, he does so at his own risk as in the case of an interference with the property. 5
As per the Definition contained in the 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 excepted, do defame that person". According to Blacks Law Dictionary, Defamation is The act of tendering the reputation of another by making a false statement to the third person. 6
According to Winfield, Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lowers a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society generally; or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. 7
The wrong of defamation is in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification. That person must be in being. Hence not only does an action of defamation not survive for or against the estate of a deceased person, but a statement about a deceased or unborn person is not actionable at the suit of the relatives, however great their plan and distress, unless the statement is in some way defamatory of them. 8
As stated by the authors of the code, defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain, which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creatures and those inconveniences to which a person, who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. According to the classical definition of the term defamation as given by Cane J., in the case of Scott v. Sumpson, 9 defamation means a false satement about a person to his discredit.In other words, defamation can be explained as publication of a statement without justification or excuse of that which is calculated to injure the reputation of another.
5 Bangia,Dr. R.K., Kumar, Dr. Narendra Law of Torts, 20 th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 2010, p. 183 6 Garner, Bryan A. Blacks Law Dictionary, 9 th Edition, West Publications, p. 479 7 P.H. Winfield, A Textbook of The Law of Tort, 5 th Edition, 1950. P. 242. 8 R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts, 17 th Edition, 1977, p. 138 9
8
III. Essentials to the Tort of Defamation The claimant must prove that the statement in question conveys a defamatory meaning Essentials to the tort of defamation comprises points must be proved for an action of defamation to succeed in court. The essentials are as follows : 1) The Statement must be Defamatory. a. If, it exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or b. Injures him in his trade, business, profession, calling or office, or c. Causes him to be shunned or avoided in society.
INNUENDO Words not necessarily defamatory on their face in their natural and ordinary meaning but defamatory because of a secondary meaning which would be understood by persons privy to the words or taken in light of the extraneous circumstances. The unspoken or unwritten but apparent, insinuated meaning of words.
In the case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror News Paper, 10 A newspaper published a photograph of a man and a woman. Underneath appeared the words 'C and B, whose engagement has been announced'. C was already married to B, and the latter sued the newspaper proprietors, alleging that the words imputed 'by innuendo' that she was immorally cohabiting with C and that several friends thought this to be the case. The plaintiff was awarded L 500 damages, although the defendants acted quite innocently.
2) The Statement must refer to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff must show the statement refers to him. It is not necessary that the plaintiff should be described by his full name, it is sufficient if he is described by the initials, even by fictitious name provided, he can satisfy the court that he was the person being referred to. It may be noted that the question is not who is meant to, but rather who is hit by the statement, a statement referring to a real person alleging something true about him may yet be defamation of another person bearing the same name. In the case of Newstead v. London express newspapers Ltd., 11 the defendant newspaper ran a piece describing the conviction for bigamy of Harold Newstead, thirty-year-old
10 165 US 150 11 249 US 152 9
Camberwell man (Camberwell is a district within London). There happened to be two men who fitted that description: a barman and a hairdresser. The story was about the barman, and quite true about him but the hairdresser had nothing to do with any bigamy charge. He sued the newspaper, and won. An ordinary reader of the article could easily have thought it referred to the hairdresser.
3) The Statement must be Published. Means that it must be communicated made known to some other person, other than the person to whom it refers. No civil action lies, if the defamatory statements are communicated only to the person spoken of, because, that cannot injure his reputation, thought it may injure his self-esteem. It must a communication to the third person. A communication of husband or wife, of defamatory statement against wife or husband, constitutes a sufficient public. 12 But uttering of a defamatory statement by a husband to a wife or by wife to a husband in presence of others is no publication on a common law principle that, husband and wife are one person. Publication need not be intention.
4) The Statement must be False. If it is true, no action would lie; for truth is an absolute defence in an action for defamation. A false statement with reference to the plaintiff. Burden of proof lies on the defendant, and falsity is presumed in the plaintiffs favour. In D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata 13 there was publication of a statement in a local daily in Jodhpur that Manjulata on the pretext of attending her evening BA classes ran away with a boy named Kamlesh. The girl belonged to a well educated respectable family. She was seventeen years of age. The news item was untrue and had been irresponsibly published without any justification. This was defamatory and the defendants, the newspaper publishers were held liable.
.
12 Wenman v. Ash, (1853) 13 CB 836. 13 AIR 1997 Raj 170 10
IV. Types of the Tort of Defamation Publication of the statement, which in its true legal sense means the communication of defamatory matter to some person other than the person of whom it is written can be made in the following two ways: Libel: The publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. The statement must be in a printed form, e.g., writing, printing, pictures, cartoons, statue, waxwork effigy etc. Slander: A false and defamatory statement by spoken words and/or gestures tending to injure the reputation of others. It is in a transient form. It also involves the sign language used by the physically disabled. Distinction between libel and slander: The basic differences between the torts of libel and slander are as follows: 1. Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example, writing, wax images, 14
films , 15 radio and television broadcasts, and public performances of plays. Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form. 2. Libel is actionable per se whereas damage must be proved for slander, except in four instances: Where there is an allegation that the claimant has committed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment; Where there is an imputation that the claimant is suffering from a contagious disease, such as venereal disease, leprosy, plague and, arguably, HIV/AIDS; Where there is an imputation that a woman has committed adultery or otherwise behaved in an 'unchaste' fashion (Slander of Women Act 1891); or Where there is an imputation that the claimant is unfit to carry on his trade, profession or calling. 3. Libel may be prosecuted as a crime as well as a tort, whereas slander is only a tort.
14 Monson v Tussaud's Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 15 Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581 11
V. Defences to Defamation Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.The defences to an action for defamation are: 1. Justification (or truth) In a civil action for defamation, truth is a complete defence. However under criminal law, it must also be proved that the imputation was made for the public good. Under the civil law, merely proving that the statement was true is a good defence the reason being that the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does no or ought not to possess. But it is not necessary to justify every detail of the charge or general terms of abuse, provided that the gist of the libel is provided to be in substance correct, and that the detail, etc., which are not justified produce no different effect on the mind of the reader than the actual truth would do. 16 The defence is available even if the statement is made maliciously and if the statement is substantially true but incorrect in respect of certain other minor particulars, the defence will still be available. The truth of defamatory word is complete defence to an action of libel or slander though it is not so in a criminal trial. 17 It is not sufficient justification to prove that there was some sort of rumour; it must be proved that it was true. 18
If the defendant is not able to prove the truth of the facts, the defence cannot be availed. 19
The Defamation Act, 1952 (England) provides that if there are several charges of defamation and the defendant is successful in proving the truth of only some of them, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation. Although there is no specific provision in India regarding the above, the law is possibly the same as prevailing in England.
16 Per Lord Denman in Cooper v. Lawson, (1838) 8 AD & E 746, 753. 17 Raghunath Damodhar v. Janardhan Gopal, (1891) 1 H&C 153. 18 Watkin v. Hall, (1868) LR3 QB 396 19 Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285
12
2. Fair Comment This defence, known until 2010 as fair comment, 20 involves making fair comments on matters of public interest. Thus legitimate criticism is no tort; should loss ensue to the plaintiff, it would be damnum sine injuria. Matters of public interest are not to be understood in a narrow sense. Comment is a statement of opinion on facts. A comment is an expression of opinion or facts that is a conclusion or an inference from them and should be distinguished from statement of facts. If it is a comment it must be distinguished from a statement of fact. Whether a statement one of factor comment depends on language, context and other circumstances. A simple illustration given by the IPC 1860 is as follows . A says of a book published by Z, "Z's book is foolish, Z must must be a weak man, Z's book is indecent ;Z must be an impure mind."These comments are and will be protected if they are not malicious. A says "I am not surprised that Z book is foolish and indecent, for he is weak and a libertine". This is not a comment but a statement of fact and A cannot plead the defence of fair comment but must prove the words to be true.
In Campbell v. spottiswoode , a well known case on this subject, the plaintiff who was a protestant dissenting minister and editor of a newspaper published in its letters on this subject of exongelising the Chinese and the none of various persons who had promised to buy paper in order to promote propaganda. The defendant, the printer of 'The Saturday Review' published in it an article which imputed to the plaintiff an attempt to make money out of a pretended object and deceive the public by false list of subscribers. The defendant was held liable as there were no facts to warrant the imputations.
A fair and a bonafide comment on a matter of public interest is no libel . The right had been recognized in cases of criticism of works of literature and art more than a century ago. The form of plea formerly was "that the words complained of are a fair comment made bonafide and without malice on a matter of public interest". The word fair embraces the meaning of honest and also of relevancy. The view expressed must be honest and must be such as can fairly be called criticism. The word fair refers to the language employed and not the mind of the writer. Hence it is possible that a fair comment
20 Spiller v. Joseph, (2010) UKSC 53. 13
should yet be published maliciously. The burden of proving that a comment is fair is on the defendant. He must establish that the facts upon which the comment thereupon is warranted in the sense that it is such as might be made by a reasonable man. Once the defendant has established that in this sense the comment is fair the onus is shifted to the plaintiff if he wishes to prove that the prima facie protection is displaced by the presence of malice in the defendant.
Essentials for Fair Comment For this defence to be available, the following essentials are required: (i) It must be a comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than an assertion of fact (ii) The comment must be fair, i.e., must be based on the truth and not on untrue or invented facts (iii) The matter commented upon must be of public interest. The word fair embraces the meaning of honest and also of relevancy. Mere exaggeration or gross exaggeration would not make the comment unfair. 21 The comment to be fair must be based on true facts and must be objectively fair in the sense that any man however, prejudiced and obstinate could have honestly held the views expressed. If due to malice on the part of the defendant, the comment is a distorted one, his comment ceases to be fair and he cannot take such a defence. In Gregory V Duke of Brunswick, 22 the plaintiff, an actor, appeared on the stage of a theatre but the defendant and other persons in malice started hooting and hissing and thereby caused him to lose his engagement. This was held to actionable and an unfair comment on the plaintiffs performance and the defendants were held to be guilty.
3. Privilege There are certain occasions when the law recognizes that the right of free speech outweighs the plaintiffs right to reputation: the law treats such occasions to be privileged and a defamatory statement made on such occasions is not actionable. The defence is somewhat
21 Merivale v. Carson, (1887) 20 QBD 175. 22 (1843) 6 M & G, 205. 14
technical : the defendant must show the court that the occasion on which the statement was made falls within an established head of privilege. Privilege is of two kinds:
Absolute Privilege Certain statements are allowed to be made when the larger interest of the community overrides the interest of the individual. No action lies for the defamatory statement even though it may be false or malicious. In such cases, the public interest demands that an individuals right to reputation should give way to the freedom of speech. Absolute Privilege is recognized in the following cases: (i) Parliamentary Proceedings Articles 105 (2) of the Indian Constitution provided that a statement made by a member of either house of Parliament in Parliament, and the publication by or under the authority of any report, paper, votes or proceedings, cannot be questioned in a court of law. 23 A similar privilege exists in respect of state legislatures, according to Article 194(2). (ii) Judicial Proceedings No action for libel or slander lies, whether against judges, counsels, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course of proceedings before any court recognized by law, even though the words written or spoken were written or spoken maliciously without any justification or excuse and from personal ill will and anger against the person defamed. Such a privilege also extends to proceedings of the tribunals possessing similar attributes. (iii)Military and Naval proceedings Proceedings of naval and military tribunals are absolutely privileged. Statements made before a naval or military Court of Inquiry by a military personal are protected. Reports made in the course of military or naval duty, such as adverse opinions expressed by one officer of the conduct of another, are absolutely privileged, even if made maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. 24
(iv) State Proceedings A statement made by an officer of the State to another in the course of official duty is absolutely privileged for reasons of public policy. Such privilege also extends to reports made
23 Rahim Baksh v. Bacha Lal AIR 1929 All 214 24 Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, (1869) LR 5 QB 94 15
in the course of military and naval duties. Communications relating to State Matters made by one Minister to another or by a Minister to the Crown is also absolutely privileged. 25
Qualified Privilege For communications made in the course of legal, social or moral duty, for self-protection, protection of common interest, for public good and proceedings at public meetings, provided the absence of malice is proved. Also, there must be an occasion for making the statement. To avail this defence, the following things must be kept in mind: (i)The statement should be made in discharge of a public duty or protection of an interest (ii) Or, it is a fair report of parliamentary, judicial or other public proceedings (iii) The statement should be made without any malice. The words of the libel and the circumstance attending its publication may themselves afford evidence of malice. 26 A privileged occasion in the present context is an occasion when the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty legal, social or moral to make it to the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. The Spousal Testimonial Privilege The spousal testimonial privilege ("spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony about events that occurred after the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage (giving rise to a questionable incentive for an individual to marry a potential witness in order to prevent the potential witness from testifying against the individual).
VI. Consent to Publication If a person willingly invites the press to cover his function or he grants an interview on his own volition, then the press can plead consent if the person turns round to bring an action of
25 Chatterton v. Secy of State for India in Council, (1895) 2 Q.B. 189. 26 Moti Lal Raha v. Indra Nath Banerjee, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 907. 16
defamation. However, if the publication goes beyond the limit of the Initial approval, there may be grounds for an action.
VII. Death of the Plaintiff If the person allegedly defamed is dead, it will be difficult to sustain the action because reputation is a personal possession and only the owner of the reputation can sue for it.
VIII. Res J udicata If a case of defamation has been tried, lost and won, it will be a waste of time to file a fresh action on the same matter. Res judicata is to say that the case has come to a logical end and had died a natural death.
IX. Accord and Satisfaction It shall be a defence to defamation if there is a mutual settlement between the two parties to the satisfaction of both of them.
X. Innocent Dissemination The person circulating the offensive matter can plead that he is ignorant of what he is disseminating and should therefore be excluded from any legal action. The plaintiff and the court usually exonerate this category of persons especially in view of the fact that they cannot pay any damages should the case be awarded against them. XI. 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.
XII. 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. 17
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatoryan insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facienot libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense. Public figure doctrine (absence of malice) Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 27 established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice). Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault. The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
27 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 18
VI. Defamation and freedom of speech Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others. Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issues. There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalize defamation. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are certain defences to defamation without which defences against defamation in the task of journalists and their public affairs commentators would have been a very dangerous one indeed. But the law has provided adequate defences to protect all those with honest and genuine intentions in the discharge of their duties. It behoves the responsible journalist to carefully consider the defences available in each case before making an incisive commentary of public interest.
19
How can a journalist claim privileges? A case study from Nigeria In the defamation laws of many states in Nigeria newspaper reports enjoy qualified privilege if they satisfy the following criteria. (a) They are fair and accurate reports of legislative proceedings. (b) They are fair and accurate reports of the public proceedings of the conference of an international organization of which Nigeria or any of its states is a member. (c) They are fair and accurate reports of any public proceedings of an international court. (d) They are fair and accurate reports of any proceedings in public of a body or person appointed to hold a public enquiry by the government or legislature of any part of the Commonwealth outside Nigeria. (e) They are fair accurate reports of any reports of any proceedings before a court exercising jurisdiction throughout any part of the Commonwealth outside Nigeria under the Nigerian Army Act 1990 or the Nigerian Navy Act, 1990. (f) They are fair and accurate copies or extracts from any register kept in pursuance of any law or Act which is open to inspection by the public or any other document which is required by any law or Act to be open to inspection by the public. (g) Notice of advertisement published by or on the authority of a court within Nigeria or office of such court.
20
VII. CONCLUSION
The laws in place to counter the menace of defamation are both satisfactory and reasonable but in certain areas need to be made more stringent so as to dissuade the celebrity crazy media from wantonly publishing and broadcasting fraudulent, defamatory matter in order to make instant money. Thus the protection of privacy and the prevention of press harassment is also an important issue which needs to be redressed with the better implementation of laws already existing. Since no cause of action survives the defamed persons death, it is clear that reputation is merely a transitory interest, which, by way of the defences available, has to be balanced against the public interest. Similarly fair comments protect the press when expressing their views on the actions of politicians, public servants and others in the public eye, provided they are true. Defamation does have significance and a very strong one at that as it protects a right which is essential to for the members of society to co-exist. Obviously, if people do not respect that right and are allowed to say and publish whatever they want without substantiating it with an honest reason to believe, then there would be no harmony in society, insecurity would be rampant and society would be in shambles. However there exists the question of balancing the interest of both the parties concerned. This debate on how to achieve the correct balance between the individuals interest in his good name and freedom of speech is a vital attribute of democratic society. However, while trying to resolve that debate via the development of the tort of defamation, the courts are hindered by the procedural game which characterises many libel actions, the unpredictability of the jury, and the absence of developed torts of invasion of privacy and breach of confidence. Thus more changes need to be taken which do away with the superfluous procedural games thus leaving behind only the core of the tort to be implemented. However, the tort of defamation has an ancient history and a capacity for survival which shall outlive more topical concerns.
21
VIII. REFERENCES ACTS The Defamation Act, 1952 (England) CASES INDIAN JUDGMENTS Ashok Kumar v Radha Kanto Pandey AIR 1967 Cal 178 D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj 170 Moti Lal Raha v. Indra Nath Banerjee, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 907 Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285 Rahim Baksh v. Bacha Lal AIR 1929 All 214 Raghunath Damodhar v. Janardhan Gopal, (1891) 1 H&C 153. Salenadandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy AIR 2009 (NOC) 299 (A.P.) T.G. Nair Melepurath Sankuni AIR 1971 Kerala 280 FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, (1869) LR 5 QB 94 Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR 7 Eq 488 De Crespigny v. Wesllelley, (1829) 5 Bing 392 Chatterton v. Secy of State for India in Council, (1895) 2 Q.B. 189 Gregory V Duke of Brunswick (1843) 6 M & G, 205 Merivale v. Carson, (1887) 20 QBD 17 Monson v Tussaud's Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 Per Lord Denman in Cooper v. Lawson, (1838) 8 AD & E 746, 753 Spiller v. Joseph, (2010) UKSC 53 Watkin v. Hall, (1868) LR3 QB 396 Wenman v. Ash, (1853) 13 CB 836 Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581
22
BOOKS Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts,(22 nd edn, 2010), 4. Tagore Law Lectures, Province of the Law of Tort, 1931, p 32. A Lakshminath & M. Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyers The law of torts, 46 (10 th edn, 2010). Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law ofTorts, (26 th edn, 2012), 11. Justice Yatinder Singh, Cyber Laws, (4 th edn, 2011), 25. ARTICLES Charles Mwangi Waveru, Defense for Defamation Pranjal Shrivastav, The Tort of Defamation WEBSITES http://www.researchgate.net/pu blication/228141964_Emerging_Torts http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030712/asp/business/story_2156681.asp http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/offences-&-penalties-under-the-it-act- 2000-439-1.html