Assignment On DEFAMATION ACT

Submitted to: Prof. Kanchan Submitted by: AnkushAtulTandon Class: 4 MAMC

Defamation Act

In layman terms, defamation can be explained as follows: Definition: Defamation may be by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representation. Any person who makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, to defame that person. Some defences: Truth published for public interest is the best defence. Any expression in good faith on the conduct or character of a public servant on a public question. Publication of a substantially true report. It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another person, provided it is made in good faith by person for protection of his or others interests. Punishment: Section 500 of IPC prescribes imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years, or fine, or both.

Meaning and explanation according to Indian Law IPC Section 499: Defamation As per the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter 21 of Defamation, under section 499, DEFAMATION is -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, to defame that person. Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or

lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Illustrations (a) A says-"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch", intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. First Exception-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception-Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception-Conduct of any person touching any public question. -It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever resepting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. Fourth Exception-Publication of reports of proceedings of courts- It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation-A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception-Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations (a) A says-"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest." A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no farther.

(b) But if A says-"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which expresses of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception-Merits of public performance.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no farther. Explanation-A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Illustrations (a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public. (b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public. (c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public. (d) A says of a book published by Z-"Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind." A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further. (e) But if A says-"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine." A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book. Seventh Exception-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.-It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashierare within this exception. Eighth Exception-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.-It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master;if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father-A is within this exception. Ninth Exception-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that

the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations (a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty." A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception-Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good. It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. Imputation without publication In section 499 the words makes or publishes any imputation should be interpreted as words supplementing to each other. A maker of imputation without publication is not liable to be punished under that section.

IPC Section 500: Punishment for Defamation As per the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter 21 of Defamation, under section 500, Punishment for defamation is - Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Court of SessionCompoundable by the person defamed. Para II PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Magistrate of the first classCompoundable by the person defamed with the permission of the court. COMMENTS A person cannot be said to have committed an offence under section 500, or 501 or 502 or 504 of the Code merely because some news item or article is published attributing certain utterances to that person

IPC Section 501: Printing or engraving matter known to be Defamatory As per the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter 21 of Defamation, under section 501, Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory - Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Court of SessionCompoundable by the person defamed. Para II PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Magistrate of the first classNon-compoundable.

IPC Section 502: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter As per the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter 21 of Defamation, under section 502, sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter - Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Court of SessionCompoundable by the person defamed. Para II PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by Magistrate of the first classNon-compoundable.

Defamation Cases

1. Telugu film actor Rajasekhar and wife Jeevitha in a defamation case against Chiranjeevi. A summon has been issued on Friday by a local court to Telugu film actor Rajasekhar and his wife Jeevitha in a defamation case.They have been asked to appear before the court on Feb 9. The Additional Chief Metropolitan court summoned the couple taking cognizance over the complaint filed against them by AlluAravind, film producer and brother-in-law of actor/politician Chiranjeevi.Aravind's counsel S MallaRao claimed that under section 500, a prime facia case can be made and issued the summons. "The court has prima facie found a case of defamation against Rajasekhar and Jeevitha after recording the statement of my client (Aravind) and today ordered summons on the actor couple asking them to appear before the court on February 9,"Rao explained. Aravind claimed that the couple and their follower HarikrishnaGoud made alleged remarks against Chiranjeevi's charitable trust and the blood bank run by it. He said that the allegations were completely false and are politically motivated.

2. Shah Rukh Khan and Farah Khan in a defamation case against Manoj Kumar ShahRukh Khan is in big trouble for his superhit movie Om Shanti Om. Well, the Veteran actor Manoj Kumar is very unhappy with the way his character has been portrayed in the movie. He has threatened to sue Shah Rukh Khan for aping him. He said that he will sue Shah Rukh and Farah Khan for what he alleges is a conspiracy to humiliate and ridicule him. Manoj Kumar told the CNN-IBN that People who make such movies do not know the meaning of respect and decency. They are criminals. There were many actors in the movie who were made fun of but they all took it very lightly but looks like ManojJi has taken this matter very seriously. He was shown being beaten up by the police outside a theatre is done in bad taste in the movie which made Manoj Kumar Ji very angry. Not just this but in another scene Shah Rukh Khan Gives a mock thank you speech in a drunken state and later says hes Manoj Kumar. All these things made Manoj Kumar very angry and he is very upset with Farah Khan. He busted out at the Director by saying that This is not film making Then, Legendary actor, Manoj Kumar has filed a case in the court for stalling the television premier of the last years biggest blockbuster and SRK starrer, Om Shanti Om.The actors plea states that he was mentally traumatized by seeing a spoof of him entering a premiere show in the move and the way the character is stopped by the guards and even beated with a stick. In the application Manoj Kumar also says that he is proud of himself as the services he had rendered in the interests of the nation due to which he was also famously known as Bharat Kumarby many.Manoj Kumar said in the plea that he was ridiculed by SRK and Farah Khan in OSO, which has caused him a mental trauma and humiliation. Manoj Kumar may finally heave a sigh of relief after being awarded a permanent injunction order by Dindoshi session court on the clips and scenes from Om Shanti Om that caused

him mental trauma, but Manoj Kumar is not yet satisfied as he is planning to file a criminal suit against Farah Khan and Shah Rukh khan for lampooning his image. Manoj Kumar advocate, Ashok Saraogi said, We have won the case as the court has ordered a permanent injunction on the scenes which mock the actor. Now we are planning for a criminal case. He said: We will be filing the case against the makers of the movie Monday under sections 499 and 500 which says defaming a person advertently either through words, print, movies or any other medium is a criminal offence. City Civil Court Judge D.R Mahajan, has ordered the producers, SRK and Gauri Khan and Sony Entertainment Television to delete the scenes on Manoj Kumar from the film before its televised premiere. Manoj Kumar, who was in news after over a decade, for his tiff with SRK and Farah Khan for enacting him in their movie, Om Shanti Om, is said to be still unsatisfied with the duo. The actor was told that the scene making fun of him would be deleted from the movie, but Manoj Kumar is left feeling deceived with the promise not fulfilled. The yesteryear super star also blames Yash Chopra for not sticking up to his word. Yash Chopra did come to my place with Shahrukh and others. I made them feel comfortable and didnt even give them a chance to apologize. It was a delightful atmosphere. They said that portion would be deleted, but they havent kept their word. It was Yashs responsibility since he brought them over. I called him yesterday and he said he was in London, says the actor upset with the director.

3. Jayalalithaa in a defamation case against a leading national daily The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings before a sessions judge in Chennai in the defamation complaint filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa against a leading national daily over publication of a report on her food habits. Passing the interim orders on petitions filed by then Editor-in-Chief of 'The Hindu' N Ram and reporter B Kolappan, Justice S Rajeswaran dispensed with their personal appearance before the principal sessions judge and ordered notice. The petitioners have challenged the validity of IPC Sections 499 (defamation), 500 (Punishment for defamation) and 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) and prayed the court to declare them as unconstitutional as they "criminalised" the speech and expression made by a newspaper or other media which faithfully reports a news item or event. They also challenged a government order of January 13 authorising the city public prosecutor to file the complaint against them for authoring and publishing the news item in the newspaper in January. The petitioners submitted that the news item reproduced in the daily, which had been published in Tamil bi-weekly 'Nakkheeran' was already in public domain with both the print and TV media 'exhaustively' reporting on it and the subsequent events and incidents.

'The Hindu' had reported the same factually, accurately and truthfully, without any intention to malign or defame the chief minister as alleged by the city public prosecutor, they submitted. 'Nakkheeran' on January 7 had faced the wrath of irate AIADMK supporters who attacked its office and burnt copies over publication of the report about Jayalalithaa's eating habits.