“RELEVANCE OF INTENTION IN DEFAMATION”

ROUGH DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED-

LAW OF TORTS

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Ms SUSHMITA SINGH NAME: ABHISHEK KUMAR

TEACHER ASSOCIATE COURSE: B.A. L.L.B (Hons.)

FACULTY OF LAW OF TORT ROLL NO- 1906

SEMESTER- 1st

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA

1
INTRODUCTION
Defamation is, in essence, the act of publishing an untrue statement which negatively affects someone’s
reputation. Taken at face value this definition is obviously far reaching, covering acts as trivial as one
classmate writing a joke on a scrap of paper and passing it to another. Luckily, both common and statute
law has developed a framework to limit the extent of the tort of defamation. This has involved a
significant balancing act – on the one hand, the law needs a way to deal with damaging false statements,
else an individual with enough money or media control could shape public perception at will. On the
other, freedom of expression stands as a key facet of liberal society. Indeed, if absolute truth were a legal
requirement, art, comedy and criticism would disappear in the blink of an eye.

They key authority is the Defamation Act 2013, which helps straighten out the significant body of case law
which has built up over the years. The overall aim of the act was to rebalance the law towards protecting
freedom of speech; in other words it benefits defendants more than it does claimants. It should be noted
that the Act doesn’t destroy the common law, which remains important for clarifying key principles and
terms (although it does override any contradictory common law.) The same general definition of
defamation still applies, but its elements have been slightly recast by the Act. The four primary
components of defamation are a defamatory statement (this has a particular definition), about the
claimant, which is published, which has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s
reputation. Before continuing onto the elements, it is worth noting the distinction between libel and
slander.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

The researcher aims to fulfill below objectives through this project:

 What is defamation
 To study the types of defamation
 To study for the intentional defamation and unintentional defamation

HYPOTHESIS
‘Hypothesis’ is derived from two words: ‘hypo’ means ‘under’, and ‘thesis’ means an ‘idea’ or
‘thought’. Hence, hypothesis means an ‘idea’ underlying a statement or a proposition.

The Hypothesis for this project is ‘What is the relevance of intention in defamation’.

2
TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION
1) Introduction - Defamation
2) Kinds of defamation
3) Intentional and Unintentional defamation
4) Essentials of Defamation
5) Injunction against publication of a defamatory statement
6) Repetition of Defamatory matter
7) Indemnity from supplier of wrong information
8) Plaintiff’s consent to publication
9) Defences
10) Recent cases
11) Conclusion

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This project would follow doctrinal methodology. Descriptive and analytical research
methodology will be followed by researcher in this project. Primary and secondary sources have
been helpful in gathering relevant information regarding project. Secondary sources like books
and articles which are available online have been used.

SOURCES OF DATA:
The researcher used secondary sources of data to complete the rough draft.

1) Secondary sources include all the websites on Law of tort, which the researcher has
consulted while making the project.

3
BIBLIOGRAPHY

The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the rough proposal:

SECONDARY SOURCES:

1) BOOKS:
a) Law of torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia
b) Law of torts by Durga Das Basu
c) Law of torts by G.S. Panday

2) WEBSITES:
a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
b) https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/tort-law/defamation/detailed.php
c) https://legaldictionary.net/defamation/
d) www.answers.com