SCHOOL OF LAW

GURU GHASIDAS VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BILASPUR (C.G.)

(A Central University)

SESSION 2018-2019

PROJECT ON

DEFAMATION

SUBMITED BY.

HEMU BHARDWAJ

STUDENT OF B.A.LLB,4th SEMESTER

ROLL NO. 17001251

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF. PARMESHWAR DAS

SUBJECT TEACHER OF IPC

GGV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest and earnest gratitude to, PROF.

PARMESHWAR DAS faculty for IPC School of Law, for giving me this
opportunity to do a project on such a valuable topic of DEFAMATION . I am
grateful for the assistance, guidance, and support that were extended during the course
of excellent research. I am also thankful to the college administration for providing
the resources necessary for thee research work. I thank my parents and friends their
moral support and love throughout my research work and project preparation. Above
all I thank the God almighty for blessing me with the health and the vitality to
complete this project.

HEMU BHARDWAJ
ROLL NO- 17001251
B.A.LL.B.4thSEMESTER

GGV
 CERTIFICATE

I am glad to submit this project on report on “DEFAMATION” as a part of my

academic assignment. I hope this would be significant for the academic purpose as
well as prove informative to all readers. Here through I declare that this project is an
original piece of research and all the borrowed texts and ideas have been duly
acknowledged .

HEMU BHARDWAJ FACULTY SIGN

ROLLNO.-17001251
B.A.LLB 4thSEMESTER _________________

GGV
 DECLRATION

I, HEMU BHARDWAJ, Roll No.17001251 B.A.LLB 4thSemester of the GURU

GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY do hereby declare that, this project is my original
work and I have not copied this project or any part thereof from any source without
acknowledgement. I am highly indebted to the authors of the books that I have
referred in my project as well as all the writers of all the articles and the owners of the
information taken from the website for it. It is only because of their contribution and
proper guidance of my faculty advisor PROF. PARMESHWAR DAS that I was able
to gather light on the subject.

HEMU BHARDWAJ
Roll. No.-17001251
B.A,LL.B. 4th SEMESTER

GGV
 CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEFINITION OF DEFAMATION

3. INGREDIENTS

4. EXCEPTIONS UNDER DEFAMATION

5. CATEGORIES OF DEFAMATION
5.1. LIBEL
5.2. SLANDER
ALSO INCLUDES
5.1.1. DEFAMATION AS TORT
5.1.2. DEFAMATION AS CRIME

6. SECTION 500- PUNISHMENT FOR DEFAMATION

7. SECTION 501- PRINTING OR ENGRAVING MATTER

KNOWN TO BE DEFAMATORY

8.SECTION 502- SALE OF PRINTED OR ENGRAVED

SUBSTANCE CONTAINING DEFAMATORY MATTER

9. CONCLUSION

GGV
 INTRODUCTION

Next to life, what man cares most is their reputation. As per Black’s Law Dictionary,
defamation means the offence of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by
false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and
slander. Defamation has become a burning issue in the present times; courtesy the
growing media frenzy which has been created over the freedom of speech and
expression as envisaged under article 19 (1) (a). There exists an apprehension in the
mind of individuals whether in their individual or public capacity as to which
statement of theirs might constitute a furore or land them behind bars. Actual truth of
the publication is usually a defence to a charge of defamation. Legal privilege arising
from a special relationship or position also relieves liability (US Senators, for
instance, cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the Senate). In
certain areas the mass media have broad discretion under the doctrine of “fair
comment and criticism”, but such comment must pertain to a person’s work and not
private affairs, and must be factually accurate1. Defamation is the publication of a
statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the
estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun
or avoid him2.

1
Defamation, Encyclopedia Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., U.S.A., 2007).
2
W.E. Peel. J Goudkamp, Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort 360 (Sweet & Maxwell, 19th edn., 2014)

GGV
 DEFINITION OF DEFAMATION

Defamation in general meaning is the action of damaging the good reputation of

someone. Under IPC , It is defined under section 499 Defamation- 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. It
could be better be explained with the help following examples:
(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 falls 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 if falls 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 falls within one of the exceptions.

GGV
 INGREDIENTS

The section requires three essentials :

1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.
2. Such imputation must have been made by
(a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible
representations.
3. Such imputation was made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or
reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning to whom it
is made.
1. Makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person -Every such person
who is engaged in composing, dictating, writing or in any way contributing to the
making of a libel is the maker of the libel. Where the matter is dictated by one person
and written down by another person, both shall be guilty of this offence. Similarly if
one person speaks, another writes and third approves of it, all the three shall be guilty.
The reason is that all who concur and assent to the doing of an unlawful act will be
guilty of this offence3.
Publication of defamatory matter-For the offence Of defamation publication of
defamatory matter is essential. In other words the defamatory matter must be
communicated to some person other than the person to whom it concerns e.g.
dictating a letter to a clerk is publication4. Where the defamatory matter is
communicated to the person defamed, such a communication will not amount to
publication5. Thus in Taki Hussain’s case, a person despatched a public officer a
notice by post which was closed in a cover. The notice contained imputation on the
character of the recipient. Allahabad High Court was of the view that since there was
no publication of the matter, therefore, this offence was not constituted6. In a case A
wrote on a piece of paper filthy abuses and scandalous matter touching the honour and
repute of B and posted it to the latter in a registered envelope marked ’personal’. B
on receiving it, read the contents and wrote counter abuses and slanders about A on
the reverse of the same paper, and sent it back to him in another envelope by ordinary

3
Bacon’s Abridged, Vol. IV ,p. 457
4
V.Illath v. K. Keshavan,(1900) I Weir 579
5
Sadashiv Atmaram, (1893) 18 Bom.205.
6
Taki Hussain,(1884) 7 All. 205 (F.B.)

GGV
post. The envelope was, however, opened at its destination by C, who read the whole
matter written by both A and against each other. In this case neither A nor B will be
liable for defamation because there was no publication of the defamatory matter and it
will not make a difference whether the letters containing scandalous matter were sent
by registered or ordinary post because in both the cases they were addressed to the
persons concerned. Where the President of a Municipal Committee placed a letter
containing defamatory matter against him, in the official file, which was read by the
members of the committee, it was held that there was sufficient publication of the
defamatory matter7. Defamatory matter, if written on a postcard, or printed on a paper
will constitute publication when it is distributed or broadcasted8. A defamatory
petition presented to a superior public officer, if sent to a subordinate public officer in
due course for inquiry would constitute publication within the meaning of this
section9. Similarly, if a defamatory letter against wife is sent to the husband or vice-
versa, such a communication will constitute publication but uttering of libel by a
husband to his wife or by wife to husband would not constitute publication10 because
they are regarded one in the eyes of law11. Sale of each copy of a printed libel is a
distinct publication of a fresh offence and hence the accused will be punished for
publishing several copies12. The writer , and the publisher of an imputation are
equally guilty. The Publisher will not be permitted to say that he did not write the
imputation13. But there are certain communications, which if made in the ordinary
course of business do not amount to publication because they are included in the cate
cry of privileged communication. Hence a person exercising the privilege may
communicate matter to a third person in the ordinary course of business and he would
escape penalty provided for this offence. A solicitor or an advocate who dictates to his
clerk a letter containing defamatory statement regarding a person is not liable for
defamation. In NJ. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai, an interesting situation
arose for decision. There was agitation of lawyers in Gujarat in connection with
appointment and transfer of Chief Justice of High Courts. On account of the agitation

7
Sukhdeo,(1932) 55 All (253)
8
Thiagaraya v. Krishnasami, (1892) 15 Mad.214
9
Raja Shah, (1889) P.R. No. 14 of 1889
10
Wenman v. Ash,(1853) 13 C.B. 836.
11
Wennhak v. Morgan,(1883) 20 Q.B.D.635
12
Pundit Mokand Ram,(1883) P.R. No. 12 of 1883
13
J. D. Dixit, (1894) 19 Bom. 703.

GGV
the lawyers ceased to participate in court proceeding and resorted to ’satyagraha’. An
editorial in a newspaper criticised as to whether it behaves to the lawyers as a class to
resort to strike. The lawyers were inter alia described as "kajia dalal" i.e. dispute
broker, in the editorial. In a suit for defamation against the editor, the Gujarat High
Court held that the editorial did not refer to the complainant personally or to any other
individual but referred to the lawyers as a class and at the most the lawyers of Gujarat.
The alleged defamation could not be referred to a determinate or identifiable section
or class of lawyers as distinguished from the rest of the members of lawyers
fraternity. The words "Kajia Dalal" was held to be used in relation to the lawyers as a
class and is not referable to a determinate section of lawyers, namely, the lawyers who
were participating in the agitation. The thrust of the editorial was that lawyers should
not have gone on strike. If the imputation is defamatory per se, necessary Mens rea
will be presumed. The maker of the statement must know that it will harm the
reputation of one concerning whom it is made. The court distinguished between
’character’ and ’reputation’. The term ’reputation’ means ’what is generally said or
behaved about the persons or things'. "character" means fortitude or moral
constitution or strength of a person. It has no relevance with the belief or opinion of
others in respect of a person. Therefore, character is what a person "actually is", while
"reputation" is what neighbours and others say "what he is”. The man may have, in
fact, a good character and yet suffer from bad reputation or vice versa. By no stretch
of reasoning, the term 'reputation’ can imply ones’ own belief about himself14.
Repetition - Under the Act no distinction has been recognised in the defamation
whether published for the first time or repeated subsequently. A publisher shall be
strictly responsible for publishing a defamatory matter irrespective of the fact whether
he is the originator of the libel or is merely repeating it15.
Publication of defamatory matter in newspaper-A newspaper stands, in matters
of defamation, in the same position, as members of the public in general. The
publisher of the newspaper shall be responsible for published defamatory matter
whether he was aware of that or not16. But an editor’s position is somewhat different.
He can escape his liability by proving that defamatory matter was published in his
absence and without his knowledge and he had in good faith entrusted the temporary

14
N. L.Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai,1984 Cri. L.J. 1790(Guj.).
15
Harbhajan Singh , A.I.R. 1961 Punj. 215.
16
Mc Leod ,(1880) 3 All. 342.

GGV
management of the newspaper during his absence to a competent person. The owner
of the paper or journal, however as a Co-owner has no responsibility. The publication
of a notice in a newspaper conveying an imputation that the complainant is dishonest
in the management of the affairs of the company and thus to conceal the dishonesty
by methods that are themselves dishonest is defamation. In Ashok Kumar Iain v.
State of Maharashtra17, it was held that where a defamatory statement against a
person is published in a newspaper, the editor, writer and publisher who has made
declaration and is shown in paper as such is liable. Where it is alleged that the
Chairman of Board of Directors of Company and its General Manager took part in
selling out newspaper, it is indicative of the fact that they had prior knowledge of
defamatory matter in paper which they could have prevented but they did not, they
would be guilty of the offence and cannot escape liability under Section 502 unless
they can make out a case of exception under Section 499. In Shatrughna Prasad
Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Kath18, the respondent a social activist belonging to
Marwari community filed a complaint against the appellant for his interview
published in "Star Dust" a film magazine in which he was alleged to have stated that
"Marwari community have no faith and love towards India, their motherland.
Complaints were filed by the respondent at Pune and Nasik. It was alleged in the
complaint that this statement was published with deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of Marwari community and this also defamed the
member of Marwari community as a class". The Magistrate at Pune took cognizance
and issued the process. According to the respondents, these allegations constitute an
offence under Section 295-A and Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
The High Court had held that no offence under Section 295-A could be made out but
the allegations prima facie constitute an offence under Section 500, Penal Code. As
far the complaint filed is concerned it was held that it does not contain any of the
allegations constituting the offence of defamation defined in Section 499. The
Magistrate at Pune was not justified in issuing process against the appellant and hence
the complaint is quashed. But as regard the complaint at Nasik was concerned it was
held that it was not for the Supreme Court to see whether the complaint constitutes an
offence under Section 499, I.P. Code. The Magistrate at Nasik came prima facie to the
conclusion that the allegations disclosed in the complaint might come within the

17
1986 Cri. L. J. 1987(Bom).
18
1997 Cri. L . J. 212 (S.C)

GGV
definition of Section 499, I.P. Code. It is for the Magistrate to weigh the facts at trial
and hence at this stage it is not proper for the Supreme Court to quash the complaint.
In S. Khushboo v. Karniammal19, it was complained that the statement of accused
given in news magazine amounts to his defamation. It was held that the statement of
accused was given to news magazine calling for societal acceptance of pre-marital
sex. He did not attack on reputation of any one in particular. It does not amount to
defamation under Section 499 I.P. Code. Moreover complainant was not an aggrieved
person. Hence complaint was held liable to be quashed.
Imputation concerning any person -Imputation concerning any person may be
conveyed obliquely or indirectly, or by way of question, conjecture, exclamation or
by irony. The expressions such as coward, dishonest man and something worse than
either and imputation of bringing false charge against the accused are regarded
defamatory. But it is necessary that the words should contain imputation concerning
some specific person or persons whose identity can be established. Imputation may
concern to an individual or to a class of individuals. A newspaper is not a person and
therefore, it is not an offence to defame a newspaper. Defamation of newspaper may,
in certain cases, involve defamation of those responsible for the publication20.
Imputation should have been made by words either spoken or intended to be
read by signs or by visible representation.-In India a person can be defamed not
only by writings, he can also be defamed by Spoken words. Here at this point Indian
law of defamation differs from English law of defamation. Under English law only
writing, printing, engraving, or some other process only can constitute defamation.
Spoken words never constitute defamation. Under that law spoken words furnish
ground for a civil action. In the Indian Penal Code the words furnish ground for a civil
action. In the Indian Penal Code the word defamation has been used to denote what is
known as libel and slander under English law. The words ’visible representation’ will
include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. Thus a statute,
a caricature, an effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures may constitute a libel,
in addition to words spoken. The publication of a group photograph with a false
caption "goonda" would be defamatory21.

19
(2010) 3 Cri. L. J 2828(S.C.)
20
Muang Sein ,(1926) 4 Rang .462.
21
Monson v. Tussads Ltd.,(1894) 1 Q.B.D 671.

GGV
Intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation
will harm-. There must be an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant or
the knowledge that the imputation will harm the reputation of such person22. It is not
necessary that actual harm should result23The test to determine whether any statement
is defamatory or not is whether under the circumstances in which writing was
published, a person of reasonable prudence to whom publication was made would be
likely to understand it in a libellous sense. Thus where certain article published in a
paper contains scandalous accusation against the girl students of a college which
implied that the girls were habitually guilty of misbehaviour described in the article,
each girl thereby individually suffered in reputation and hence some of the girls were
held entitled to maintain action for defamation. A is charged for publishing a
defamatory statement against B in the press, alleges the statement Published in the
press is untrue. Here if the statement is published in good faith without any intention
to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it may harm, A will not be liable.
By harm is meant imputation on a man's character made and expressed to others so as
to lower him in their estimation. Anything which lowers him in his own estimation
does not constitute defamation. Where A files a case of defamation against B and B
asserts that A has no reputation, the plea of B would fail because everybody is
possessed with some reputation and therefore, if a case of defamation is otherwise
made out B will be liable. Where the accused had no malice or ill-will towards the
complainant and there was no cogent evidence that the complainant ever obstructed
the entry of the accused to cinema without any ticket which could have offended the
accused and the evidence on the whole creates doubt in the prosecution version about
the guilt of the accused, the accused will be discharged from the allegation.
Defamatory article -In M.P. Narayana Pillai v. M.P. Chako, it was held that where
an article is published in many parts and some containing defamatory materials,
others not, in such a case article as a whole must be read. The impact and effect of the
imputations has to be considered in the background of the entire facts and
circumstances stated therein. If the disreputable part can be removed by the other
parts and the conclusions, then no prosecution for defamation can be launched by
picking and choosing the disreputable part alone. The circumstances under which and

22
Municipal Board Konch,A.I.R 1952 All 114.
23
T. G. Goswami ,A.I.R 1952 Pepsu 165

GGV
the portions of the article wherein the alleged defamatory imputations occur and their
impact on the mind of the reader or reading the article as a whole has to be
considered. An imputation that a person would be ex-communicated if he carries on
the business of leather, and if he participates in social functions and takes meals, is
certainly one which lowers the moral character of that person not only by itself but
also in respect of his profession in business of leather24.

24
Pokhai v. Dina ,1984 Cri. L.J.(N.O.C.) 154

GGV
 EXECPTIONS

Exception 1.-The requirement of this exception are :

(1) that the impugned statement must be shown to be true; and
(2) that its publication must be shown to be for public good.
This exception and exception 4 requires that the imputation should be true. The
remaining exceptions do not require it to be so; they require that it should be made in
good faith. It is also necessary that truth when set up as a defence must extend to the
entire defamation and not only to a part of it. No amount of truth will justify a libel
unless it is established that its publication is for public good. Where the imputation is
good but it is not published for public good but only for a community such a
publication cannot be held to be good. When the allegations are themselves
defamatory and they are not proved true, no question of fair comment will arise. A
mere exaggeration does not make a comment unfair.7 The Bombay High Court has
taken the view that the defamatory article must be read in its entirety and the court
must decide what impression would be produced on the mind of an unbiased reader.
.In a case A and B were two rival candidates to the Chairmanship of Town Area
Committee, A objected to the nomination of B on the ground that he was a drunkard.
In a charge for defamation A can plead that his statement was true and was made in
good faith for public good. Thus he can claim the defence under exception 1 to this
section. In Iawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao, the respondent
Manohatrao Ganpatrao Kapiskar filed a complaint in the Court of C.J.M. alleging that
by publishing a news item in its newspaper "DainikLokmath" on 4-2-1984. Mr. J.L.
Darda the Chief Editor of the daily along with others have committed offences
punishable under sections 499, 500, 501 and 502, read with section 34, Indian Penal
Code. The news item in the instant case was that when a question regarding mis-
appropriation of Government funds was put to the Minister concerned, he had replied
that a preliminary enquiry was made by the Government and it disclosed that some
mis-appropriation had taken place. When questioned further about the names of
persons involved, he (the Minister) had disclosed the name of five persons including
that of the complainant. Under these ' circumstances the complainant alleged that he
had been defamed. The Supreme Court observed that "what the accused had published
in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly.

GGV
Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary inquiry made by the
Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true
published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the
reputation of the complainant." It was held that as the news items was published for
public good and not to malign the reputation of the complainant, therefore, no offence
against the accused was made out.
Exception 2 -Any person occupying a public position renders himself open to
criticism for his actions while discharging his functions from the position he occupies.
Such a criticism must be made in good faith and it must relate to actions of public
servants. Good faith presupposes a reasonable degree of care and caution in making
an imputation which on the face of it is defamatory. It does not merely imply absence
of ill will. In order that the comment may be fair :
(a) it must be based on facts truly stated;
(b) it must not impute corrupt or dishonourable motives to the person whose conduct
or work is criticised except in as far as such imputations are warranted by the fact;
(c) it must be an honest expression of the writers real opinion made in good faith; and
(d) it must be for the public good.
Fair criticism, however, does not justify a personal incentive since an attack on a
person’s private life is not privileged but sometimes a private question may become a
public one if public is called upon to support it. The Whole character of a person
cannot be under public character alone involved.
It was held In re Arundhati Roy, that the broad and general proposition that a reply
submitted to a contempt notice can, in no case, amount to contempt of court in the
light of second exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and is contrary to
the Law of Contempt as adjudicated by the Courts in the country from time to time
and the limits prescribed by the Act and the judicial pronouncements which are well
within the knowledge of all responsible citizens. The law of defamation under the
Penal Code cannot be equated with the Law of Contempt of Court in general terms. It
was further held that even a person claiming the benefit of second exception to
section 499 Indian Penal Code is required to show that the opinion expressed by him
was in good faith which related to 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. Under the Law of Contempt statements made in pleadings, petitions and
affidavits of the parties, in a number of cases, have been held defamatory statements

GGV
amounting to offences under the section unless it is shown that they fall within any of
the exceptions. The benefit of exception even under the law of defamation, much less
in contempt proceedings may not be available if the insinuations are made against an
institution of the State and not restricted to persons as an individual or a collection of
persons.
Exception 3 -The conduct of publicists who take part in politics or other matters
concerning the public can be commented on in good faith. In construing a document
the courts are not concerned with what the parties intended but with what the parties
did and what they said; the words actually used by them and language actually
employed. Thus the Rangoon High Court has held that where the editor of a
newspaper not content with making a comment upon the happenings in a municipal
office observed that the respondents’ conduct was inconsistent and topsy turvy; use of
such expression was unjustified and he will be guilty under section 500, LP. Code.
Exception 4.-This exception requires that the report of the proceedings of a court of
justice should be without malice. It should be a fair and accurate report of what took
place before the tribunal. This exception does not require good faith. It is not confined
to judgment and orders but also covers pleadings whether relevant or not.2 According
to the Supreme Court :
“The fourth exception says that it is no defamation to publish a substantially true
report of the proceedings of a court of justice but does not make any such concession
to proceedings of a House of Legislature or the Parliament”
It was held in T. Satish LI. Pai v. Narayan Nagappa Nayak, that once first
information report is lodged alleging commission of offences under the Indian Penal
Code and public authorities take cognizance of the same initiating necessary legal
action, report published in newspaper of any of the proceedings relating to crime
giving contents of F.I.R. would not amount to defamation. Publication of such news
item about court proceeding would squarely fall within fourth exception of section
499, Indian Penal Code and proceedings against journalist are not sustainable.
Exception 5 -The administration of justice is a matter of universal interest to the
whole public. Therefore, a free comment on the judgments of the court, the verdict of
the jury, the conduct of parties and of witnesses is necessary. The criticism must not
intentionally assail the character of others or impute criminality to them. A journalist
is supposed to discharge his duties fairly and if his comments are fair no one will be
permitted to complain.

GGV
Exception 6-This exception deals with literary criticism of public performance
submitted to its judgment. It covers criticism of book published on literature, art,
painting, Speeches made in public, acting, singing. etc. The criticism must be fair and
made in good faith.
Exception 7-This exception allows a person under whose authority others have been
placed either by their consent or by law to censure in good faith, those who are so
placed under his authority so far as regards matters to which that authority relates. A
municipal engineer reported to the Municipality that stock of meal was taken away by
the contractor. It was held that if the report being made was in good faith this
exception will apply. Statements made by a person during police investigation merely
expressing suspicion as to complicity of certain person in crime will not amount to
defamation.
In Harsh Mendiratta v. Maharaj Singh, the plaintiff was the wife of Arjun Lal
Mendiratta who was working as Assistant to Project Director of Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations with headquarter at Delhi. It is alleged that the
defendant did not give him any charge of Assistant to the Project Director and instead
had been harassing him in many ways. It is alleged that defendant Maharaj Singh
expressed the views that he had no choice but to accept Mr. Mendiratta with greatest
reluctance and this statement reflects on the competence of Arjun Lal Mendiratta and
as such is defamatory causing mental torture, pain and agony to the plaintiff and her
family. It was held by the Delhi High Court that the general remarks made by some
authority regarding the competence of a subordinate would not amount to defamation.
The alleged statement per se, even, if made by Maharaj Singh is not defamatory. It
does not reflect adversely on the work, conduct, reputation or character of Mendiratta
or the plaintiff. It was further observed that it is not the plaintiff’s case that the
defendant made any allegation in respect of person’s character or moral turpitude
against Mendiratta.
Exception 8 -This exception will be attracted if it is proved
(1) that the person to whom the complaint was made had lawful authority over the
officer complained against; and (2) that the accusation was made in good faith.‘ It is
necessary for the application of this exception that the complaint is fide and not made
with the intention to injure any one. A complaint to a police constable is not
privileged and will not fall under this exception. A statement in first information

GGV
report will fall under this exception only if there was good faith of the person making
the accusation. Accusation in a newspaper is not covered by this exception.’
Exception 9 -Where a defamatory statement is made in good faith for the protection
of the interest of the person making it, this exception will come into operation.
Interest of the person has to be real and legitimate where a notice was issued on behalf
of a Hindu widow, charging the accused with criminal breach of trust and the reply of
the accused was that the widow was living an immoral life, it was held that the
exception applied. Even if the imputation is baseless and incorrect but if made in good
faith for the public good exception will apply. In LC. Randhir v. Girdhari lal, G i.e.
Girdhari lal was dismissed employee of the Indian Bureau of Mines. G wrote I letter
to the Controller of the Bureau stating certain facts about the financial position and
dealings of R (LC. Randhir) who was also an employee subordinate to the
Controller. According to R that letter constituted defamation and was written by the
accused out of malice with a view to harming the chances of his expected promotion.
The letter contained imputation of the character of R suggesting that in all probability
he was collecting wealth by practising corruption. The imputations could be
considered for public good inasmuch as R was occupying a supervisory position in a
Government concern and it could always be in the interest of the public that the office
is without blemish and not occupied by a person practising corruption. In order to
prove that the imputation was made in good faith, it is not enough to prove that the
accused believed it to be true. The belief must have been inspired on rational basis
and if due care and attention is not given by the accused before making the statement
that would defeat the plea of good faith. In this case considering the circumstances in
which the letter in question was written by the accused to the superior officer of the
complainant, non-proof of express malice materially showing that the accused was
careful enough in making the inquiry which is in fact demonstrated by the admission
that most of the articles shown as purchased have really been purchased during the
period indicated by the accused, there was enough ground for holding that the accused
acted with due care and caution, at any rate he was not reckless and there is
preponderance of probability that he acted in good faith. Thus G was not guilty of
defamation.
In Yadav Moti Ram Patil v. Rajiv G. Ghodankar, several members of society
received anonymous letter by post making certain serious allegations containing
obscene material against character of daughter of accused No. 1; Accused and other

GGV
members of society approached police for guidance Imputation was made against
complainant that he had written said letters. It was made in good faith in order to
protect interest of family members of accused. Police registered a non-cognizable case
under section 507. I.P. Code against the respondents No. 1. Complainant also warned
him not to commit any cognizable offence else action would be taken against him. No
further action was taken by police, nor the accused No. 1 or any other accused filed
any complaint against the re5pondent No. 1. in the court for any offence including
under section 507 I.P. Code. However, the respondent No. I filed a complaint against
accused No. 1 to 6 under section 500 and 501 read with section 34 I.P. Code. After
enquiry under section 202 Magistrate issued process against the accused persons. That
order was challenged by the accused persons by filing revision which was rejected.
Thereafter writ petition was filed to quash the process. It was contended that the
accused/petitioners had not taken any action nor made any complaint against the
respondent No. 1. They approached Police just for protection and guidance. It was
held under these circumstances that the offence of defamation is not made out as the
case is clearly covered by Exception 8th and 9th of section 499 I.P. Code Therefore
order issuing Process was held liable to be quashed.
Advocates.--In absence of express malice or wantonness or private motive, the
advocate is protected under the exception.‘ The court ordinarily resumes that the
defamatory matter was published in good faith and made on instructions.
Witness.-A witness has no absolute privilege as regards statement made by him. He
has only a qualified privilege under exception 1 or 9. Where a witness is compelled to
give an answer in making a defamatory statement and answer was given on the basis
of compulsion he will be protected by this exception.
Parties.-Parties will be entitled to protection under exception 9 if the statement is
bona fide and with a view to protect their interest.
Judge.-Section 77, Indian Penal Code protects judges for acts done when acting
judicially. Where the judge censures the conduct of a witness in good faith he is
protected. An action for defamation cannot be maintained against a judge for words,
spoken by him whilst trying a cause in court, even though such words are alleged to
be false, malicious and without reasonable cause.
Club committee.-The committee members of a social club, even if wrong, are given
protection under this exception, but for this exception it would be impossible for such
a body to function.

GGV
Reports.-The reports of an officer in the execution of his duty under his superior’s
orders which contains defamatory imputations against others, but which does not
appear to have been made recklessly or unjustifiably is covered by this exception. A
totally false report, however will not be protected.
Legislators.-An absolute privilege is attached to the speeches made on the floor of the
house either of Parliament or State Legislature. Exceptions to section 499 are
exhaustive and cannot be enlarged.
Difference between exceptions 8 and 9.-In exception 8, the person to Whom the
complaint is made must have lawful authority to deal with the .subject-matter of the
complaint; while under exception 9 there is no such requirement, it would be
sufficient if communication is made to a person for the protection of one’s own
interest along with that of the other or is made for public good.
Exception 10 -For attracting this exception it must be proved that the accused
intended in good faith to convey a caution to one person against another, intending for
the good of the person to whom the caution was conveyed or to some person in whom
the person is interested or for public good25. The caution is intended to be given to the
person to whom it is intended. The imputation must be made in good faith.

25
H.P. Baidya, A.I.R 1930 Cal. 645

GGV
 CATEGORIES OF DEFAMATION

For historical reasons, defamation can be divided into the following categories:
1.Libel – Representation in a permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy or
statute.
2.Slander – Depiction in transient form. It is basically through words spoken or
gestures.
Essentials characteristics of defamation
i. The statement must be defamatory.
ii. The said statement must refer to the plaintiff.
iii. The statement must be published i.e., communicated to at least one person other
than the claimant.
In India, there is no such distinction between libel and slander. Both libel and slander
are criminal offence. For better understanding, it can be divided into two categories:
i. Criminal
ii. Civil
Defamation as a crime
The IPC under chapter XXI sections 499-502 protects an individual’s / person’s
reputation. Defamation against the state is contained in section 124A [Sedition],
Section 153 of the Code provides for defamation of a class i.e., community [Riot],
while section 295A deals with hate speech with regards to outraging religious
sentiments. [Hate Speech] Section 499 of the IPC defines ‘defamation’ as being
committed:
i. Through: (i) words (spoken or intended to be read), (ii) signs, or (iii) visible
representations;
ii. Which are a published or spoken imputation concerning any person;
iii. If the imputation is spoken or published with: (i) the intention of causing harm to
the reputation of the person to whom it pertains, or (ii) knowledge or reason to believe
that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person to whom it pertains will be
harmed. This broad definition is subject to four explanations and ten exceptions. If a
person is found guilty of having committed defamation in terms of section 499 of the
IPC, the punishment is stipulated in section 500, simple imprisonment for up to two

GGV
years or fine or with both. The Cr PC, which lays down the procedural aspects of the
law, states that the offence is non-cognizable and liable. Those who are accused of the
offence would generally not be taken into custody without a warrant, and as such, an
aggrieved person would not be able to simply file a police complaint but would, in
most cases, have to file a complaint before a magistrate. As far as the 'truth defence' is
concerned, although ‘truth’ is generally considered to be a defence to defamation as a
civil offence, under criminal law, only truth is a defence to defamation as a crime
(assuming, of course, that it is demonstrably true) only in a limited number of
circumstances. This can make persons particularly vulnerable to being held guilty of
having committed defamation under the IPC even if the imputations they made were
truthful.
Defamation as a tort
As far as defamation under tort law is concerned, as a general rule, the focus is on
libel (i.e., written defamation) and not on slander (i.e., spoken defamation). In order to
establish that a statement is libellous, it must be proved that it is
(i) false,
(ii) written;
(iii) defamatory, and
(iv) published.
An interesting aspect of defamation as a tort is that it is only a wrong if the
defamation is of a nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. In most
cases, this translates to saying that it is not a tort to defame a deceased person since,
as a general rule, the plaintiff needs to be able to prove that the defamatory words
referred to him. However, this does not mean that there can be no cause of action if a
dead person is defamed — if, for example, a defamatory statement negatively impacts
the reputation of a deceased person’s heir, an action for defamation would be
maintainable. Further, if an action for defamation is instituted, and defamation is
found to have been committed, damages will be payable to the plaintiff (usually, the
person defamed). In addition to this, a person apprehensive of being defamed in a
publication may seek the grant of an injunction to restrain such publication. However,
pre-publication injunctions are rarely granted as Indian courts have tended to follow
the principle laid down in the 1891 case of Bonnard v. Perryman which is as follows:
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction, and even by an interlocutory
injunction, the publication of a libel. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is

GGV
discretionary, and an interlocutory injunction ought not to be granted except in the
clearest cases—in cases in which, if a jury did not find the matter complained of to be
libellous, the Court would set aside the verdict as unreasonable. An interlocutory
injunction ought not to be granted when the Defendant swears that he will be able to
justify the libel, and the Court is not satisfied that he may not be able to do so.
This principle has been followed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the
2002 case of Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi.As such, even if there is an
apprehension that content may be of a defamatory nature, it is likely that publication
would not be restrained except in exceptional cases — presumably, those cases where
the later payment of damages would clearly not suffice to set right the wrong done to
the person defamed. In non-exceptional circumstances, Indian courts have shown a
tendency to support free speech, and have not displayed a tendency to grant
injunctions which would have the effect of muzzling speech on the ground of
possible defamation. It is significant to mention that a defamation bill was proposed
by the Rajiv Gandhi government to deal with the law pertaining to defamation.
However, Defamation Bill, 1988 received widespread criticism from the media and
opposition parties due to its draconian provisions; as a result it was withdrawn.

GGV
SECTION 500.- PUNISHMENT FOR DEFAMATION -Whoever
defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. This section provided punishment for
defamation. The quantum of punishment according to this section may extend to two
years, whether with or without fine. In Rekhabai v. Dattatraya26, it was held that
where an offence of defamation is committed through a letter, the case can be tried
either at the place where the letter was written and posted or at the place where the
letter was received and read.
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. This section makes a printer or engraver of defamatory matter
punishable not as an abettor but as a principal offender if such a person knows or has
reason to believe that the matter printed or engraved is defamatory. The publisher
shall also be bialable27. For the application of this section following are the two
essentials:
1. The accused printed or engraved a defamatory matter.
2. The accused knew or had reason to believe that such matter was defamatory.
Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Noncognizable—
Bailable— Triable by Court of Session—Compoundable by the person defamed.
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.
This section supplements the provisions of the previous section by making the seller
of defamatory matter punishable.
Ingredients -The section requires following essentials :

26
1986 Cri. L . J. 1797
27
RameshChander , 1966 Cri. L. J. 292

GGV
1. Selling or offering for sale any printed or engraved substance, and
2. Knowledge that such substance contains defamatory matter.

GGV
 CONCLUSION

The law of defamation seeks to protect individual reputation. Its central problem is
how to reconcile this purpose with the competing demands of free speech. Since both
these interests are highly valued in our society, the former as perhaps the most dearly
prized attribute of civilized human beings while the latter the very foundation of a
democratic society. The apex court gave an interim time period of eight weeks to the
petitioner within which they can challenge. Meanwhile, other cases have also arisen
especially in the political for such as defamation case filed against Gogoi or the
alleged arrest of Kiku Sharda. The decision brings finality to the case but raises
certain questions in its wake. For instance, in a progressive economy like India, is
resorting to penal provisions justified especially in an era, where reformative justice is
replacing retributive justice. Besides the growing intolerance in the nation is another
issue which might get a reason due to this judgement. In such situations, there
becomes a need to shed one’s inhibition and discuss viable solutions. One such
proposition in this area would be the right to reply. Of course, this has been debated
earlier. However, owing to the chilling effect which might be incumbent on the
individual/ organization; right to reply has just added on the scepticism. However,
right to reply appears as a civilised manner to address matter rather than jumping on
conclusions, convicting and seeking damages. Some US states and other countries
have imbibed this concept. Certainly, we too can utilise this concept. The discussion
brings us to the point that in cases of constitutional interpretation, the stakes become
higher. It is easy to criticize rather than actually get into the depths of matter. Of
course, a healthy criticism fosters creativity and growth. Nowadays, it is easy to have
a critical approach rather than actually get into the skin of the matter. Also, it cannot
be ignored that the judiciary tries its best to give a harmonious construction in such
matters. As citizens, we too, have a responsibility– it is time to revisit ourselves.

GGV
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)

2. Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,2018,

by Prof. S.N. Mishra

3. Indian Penal Code by K D Gaur

Websites

1. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/report42.pdf

2. http://www.msrlawbooks.com/file/INDIAN_PENAL_CODE.pdf

3.https://ssb.nic.in/WriteReadData/LINKS/THE%20INDIAN%20PENA
L%20CODE,%201860b2d7f6b7-29cf-4366-9dc1-1d00eda619b8.pdf

GGV
GGV