TORT

Topic: - RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS ACKNOWLEDGED AS AN

INHERENNT PERSONAL RIGHT OF EVERY PERSON AS A PART OF RIGHT TO
OF PERSONAL SECURITY.---ANALYSE THE CONCEPT OF DEFAMATION

Assistant Professor
MS. RUPA PRADHAN

NAME: BONNY BASAK

ROLL NO.: 61
COURSE:LL.B. 3 YEARS (1st SEMESTER)

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL

STUDIES
2016
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my sincerest thanks to Ms

RUPA PRADHAN, class teacher in Law, Indian Institute of Legal Studies, for his guidance,

sound advice and affectionate attitude during the course of the study work.

There is no hesitation in saying that she molded raw clay into whatever we are through his

incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout the academic pursuit. It is due to his patient

guidance that I have been able to complete the task.

I would also thank the Indian Institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of information

therein. I express my regards to the Library staff for cooperating and making available the books

for this project research paper.

Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me throughout the

project work.

Date:
_____________________
BONNY BASAK
LL.B (1st Semester) Roll No: 61
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________
Research Methodology.
...3 - 4
A. Aims and
Objectives..
3
B. Statement of
Problem.
..3
C. Research Hypothesis.
.3
D. Research Questions..
..3
E. Methodology of Research.
.4
F. Scope and
Limitations..
4
G. Review of Literature..
.4
H. Mode of
Citation.
4

Table of
Cases
..5

Chapter 1:
Introduction
6 - 7

Chapter 2:
Maintenance
8-9
 What is
maintenance
8
Who is entitled to
maintenance..8
Whose obligation is it to maintain the
elderly....8
How is an application for maintenance and decided
.8
What if the elderly themselves and their children and specified
do not have sufficient means to maintenance
them.9
Abandonment
..9
Conditional transfer of
property.9
Chapter 3: Governments
Role..10
Chapter 4: Salient futures of this Act..
.11
Chapter 5:
Conclusion
.12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
13

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
___________________________________________________________
A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aims and objectives of this project are to understand the concept and the principle of Good
faith in The concept of Defamation. One of the aims of the project is to have a comparative study
on the provisions relating to Concept of Defamation.

B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
 Under criminal law says only libel has been recognized as an offence. Slander is
no offence. Why under English law slander has no offence? Why slander is only civil wrong in
England?

C. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Research in common parlance refers to a search for knowledge. It is an original contribution to
the existing stock of knowledge making for its advancement Defamation is a tool to protect the
reputation of a individual and to regain his estimation on the eyes of other the Tort of Defamation
is highly misuse in India.

D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the statement of problem and research hypothesis aforementioned, the following
research questions have been formulated:

1. How is defamation defined under Indian laws?

2. How is criminal defamation law placed in the IPC?
3. What is the procedural requirement for filling a criminal defamation case and how is the
law set into motion?
4. How does defamation as a civil wrong work?
5. How is a civil defamation case instituted?

E. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

Methodology implies more than simply the methods the researcher used to collect data.
It is often necessary to include a consideration of the concepts and theories which
underlie the methods. The methodology opted for the study on the topic is Analytical and
Doctrinal. Doctrinal research in law field indicates arranging, ordering and analysis of the
legal structure, legal frame work and case laws by extensive surveying of legal literature
but without any field work.

F. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The scope of the study refers to the parameters under which the study is operating. An extensive
attempt has been made in order to search for the quest with regard to the topic under this paper.
Though there is ample scope to highlight on the principle of good faith and duty of disclosure
according to different Statutes, but the scope of research work is limited to a particular area in
search of answer. Therefore, the researcher confines to the materials which are available and
widely accepted.

G. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The researcher while writing this project has taken recourse to various primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources would include various laws. Secondary sources would include books
and articles, reports and websites.

H. MODE OF CITATION
A Blue Book system of citation has been adopted throughout the project.

TABLE OF CASES
 Chapter 1:

INTRODUCTION

First talk about the Tort. The word tort has been derived from the Latin term
tortum , which means to twit. Tort is breach of some duty independent of contract which has
caused damages to the plaintiff giving rise to civil cause of action and for which remedy is
available. If there is no remedy it cannot be called a tort because the essence of tort is to give
remedy to the person who has suffered injury.

The defamation laws exist to protect a person, business, group, government, religion or
nations reputation from harm. A defamatory statement come in two forms: a permanent
defamatory statement called libel {written or recorded (such as a film) in some other way} and
non permanent defamatory statement called Slander (unrecorded speech and gestures). In
England libel is a crime but slander is not. Slander is only a civil wrong in England. Criminal law
in India does not make any such distinction between libel and slander. Both libel and slander are
criminal offences under section 499, I.P.C. The concept is very old and is backed up by various
judicial pronouncements.

A person who defames anther may be called a defamer, famacide, libeler or

slanderer.

CHAPTER-2

Generally speaking, a person who brings a defamation lawsuit must prove the
following:1

The defendant published the statement. In other words, that the defendant uttered or
distributed it to at least one person other than the plaintiff. You dont need to be a media
mogul to be a publisher. There is no requirement that the statement be distributed broadly,
to a large group, or even to the general public. If you publish something on the Internet,
you can assume that this requirement has been met.
 The statement is about the plaintiff. The statement need not name the person explicitly if
there is enough identifying information that those who know the person will recognize
the statement as being about him or her. For more information, see the section on Who
can sue for defamation.

The statement harmed the reputation of the plaintiff, as opposed to being merely insulting
or offensive. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that
exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his peers,
causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. For more information,
see the section on What is defamatory statement.

The statement was published with some level of fault. Fault requires that the defendant
did something he should not have done or failed to do something he should have.
Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant
acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is
a public figure or official. The level of fault that must be proven is discussed in
the Actual Malice and Negligence section of the legal guide.

The statement was published without any applicable privilege. A number of privileges
may be available depending on what the defendant published and the source(s) he relied
on for the information. For more information, see the section on Defamation Privileges
and Defeasance in this guide.

In cases involving public officials, public figures or matters of public concern, a plaintiff must
prove that the statement was false. In cases involving matters of purely private concern, in many
states the burden of proving truth is on the defendant. This is not to say that every detail you
publish must be perfectly accurate to avoid liability. If you get a few minor details wrong, this
will not necessarily negate the truth of what you say so long as the statement at issue is
substantially true. See the section on Substantial Truth for more information.

1.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/defamation (visited 29/11/2016)

CHAPTER-3

Damages for Defamation:

In most states, the plaintiff must also prove that the defamatory statement caused him or
her actual damage. Actual damages include such things as the loss of a job because of the
defamatory statement, but can also include mental anguish or suffering associated with the
defamation. Some jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where damage is presumed if
the defamatory statement relates to one of the following subjects:
Impugns a person's professional character or standing;

States or implies that an unmarried person is unchaste (e.g., is sexually active);

States or implies that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; or
States or implies that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude (e.g., theft or
fraud).

CHAPTER-4

The Various Types of Damages

Damages are the principal remedy for libel and slander. In addition to damages, the court may
also order an injunction restraining the defendant from further publication of the defamation.
Even though an action in defamation is really an action to repair damage caused to the plaintiffs
reputation, the court does not have the power to order the defendant to publish an apology.
There are two types of damages that may be awarded by the court. These are general damages
and exemplary damages.2 There is a subset of general damages which is called aggravated
damages and which is sometimes viewed as a third and distinct type of damages. A possible
explanation for this distinction is that in certain cases the court has awarded aggravated damages
as a separate head of compensation from general damages. Aggravated damages are essentially
damages taking into account the aggravating factors ie factors which aggravate the damage that
has been caused and which justify a higher amount of general damages being awarded.

The purpose of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the effects of the defamatory
statement. Unlike damages recoverable for personal injury or property damage, general damages
in defamation claims serve different functions. Such damages are intended to console the
plaintiff for the hurt and distress that has been caused by the defamation. It is also intended to
redress (insofar as a monetary award is able to) the harm that has been caused to his reputation
and as a vindication of his reputation.

In defamation, general damages are at large. By this, it is meant that the damages cannot be
assessed by means of any mechanical, arithmetic or objective formula or method. The court
assesses damages after hearing all the evidence.

The Factors

There are various factors which the court traditionally considers in determining an award of
damages for defamation. What is set out below is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the factors
which the court may consider. Certainly, some of these factors may not apply in every case and
other factors may have to be taken into account, depending on the facts and circumstances of the
case.