DEFAMATION

INTRODUCTION
• Every man has a right to reputation.
• Defamation is a tort which injures reputation
(without justification or lawful excuse) by exposing a
person to hatred, contempt or ridicule and is therefore
actionable.
# Dixon v. Holden
A man’s reputation is his property and it’s,is
possible, more valuable, than other property.
• If reputation is lost, everything is lost.
• Publication of statements which tends to lower a
person in the estimation of right thinking members of
society generally or which makes them shun or avoid
that person is defamation. - Winfield

1
• It includes injury to himself, to the reputation of his
wife, his children or dependents if the injury suffered
by them has a direct bearing on the reputation of
the man who alleges to have suffered an injury.
• Defamation is both a civil and a criminal wrong.
• The law of defamation provides for balancing of
interests i.e. reputation v. freedom of speech.
‣ The tort of defamation protects reputation and
defences to the tort, viz. truth and privilege,
protects the freedom of speech.
• Defamation is a reasonable restriction on the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
and is saved by Art. 19(2).

2
 LIBEL & SLANDER
• English law divides defamation into: libel and
slander.
‣ Libel is a publication of a false and defamatory
statement, in some permanent form, tending do
injure the reputation of another person, without
lawful justification or excuse. Libel is addressed
to the eye. Eg. Writing, printing, picture,
caricature, effigy or statue.
‣ Slander is a false and defamatory verbal or oral
statement in some transitory form, tending to
injure the reputation of another person, without
lawful justification of excuse. Slander is
addressed to the ears of the listeners. Eg.
Spoken words or gestures, rumours and gossip.
• Reputation is the opinion of the world in general.

3
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBEL & SLANDER

Libel Slander
Libel is both a civil and Slander is merely a civil
criminal wrong wrong except in certain
cases - blasphemy,
sedition, obscenity, contempt
of court, solicitation to
commit a crime.
Libel is actionable per se. Slander is actionable only
on proof of special damage.
Exceptions- Imputation
of criminal offence
punishable with
imprisonment, chastity or
adultery to a woman, does
honesty in any office, etc.

4
Reduction of the A slander may be uttered
statement into writing & in the heat of moment
its subsequent publication and under a sudden
in a permanent form, provocation. It is
shows greater deliberation transient.
and raises a suggestion of In every case the
malice. publication of a slander,
However, the actual the publisher acts
publisher of a libel may be consciously and voluntarily
an innocent person and and must necessarily be
therefore not liable. guilty.

Mere loss of reputation is Mere loss of reputation is

sufficient to constitute an not sufficient to constitute
action for libel. an action for slander;
there must be loss of some
material advantage - some
loss which is pecuniary.

5
Libel is addressed to the Slander is addressed to
eyes. the ears.
A libel conduces to a Does not.
breach of peace.
Under English law the Under English law of
limitation period for libel is the limitation period for
6 years. slanderous 2 years.
In Indian law, it is In Indian law it is
1 year. 1 year.

• The above stated distinctions do not find any place in

India.
• Under Indian criminal law, libel and slander are
treated alike.
• There is no crime of slander in English law.

6
• In India however slander is both a tort and a
crime.
• In the following five cases slander is actionable per
se i.e. special damage to the plaintiff need not be
proved.
‣ Accusation of a criminal offence punishable
corporally and not by fine. E.g. murder, robbery,
theft etc.
2 Accusation of virulent disease. Venereal disease
‣
and leprosy come within the rule; smallpox,
however. does not. The imputation must be that
the plaintiff was suffering from the disease at
the time the words were spoken and not at some
time in the past.
3
‣ Imputation against office, profession or trade.

‣ Unchastity in a woman or a girl.

4

5
‣ Aspersion on caste.
7
 ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION
(1) The words must be false & defamatory.
(2) The said words must refer to the plaintiff.
(3) The words must be published.

THE WORDS MUST BE DEFAMATORY &

FALSE
• A defamatory statement is one which in tends to
injure the reputation or character of the plaintiff.
• A statement will be defamationorg
tree if it:
‣ Exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule
or obloquy or
‣ Tends to injure him in his profession or trade or

‣ Causes him to be shunned or avoided by society

or a substantial & respectable proportion of society.
8
• Defamation is an invasion of one’s reputation and
good name. It tends to injure one’s reputation,
diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in
which a person is held or to excite adverse, derogatory
or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him.
• Whether a person statement is defamatory or not
depends upon how the right thinking members of the
society are likely to take it.
• The standard to be applied is that of a right
minded citizen, a man of fair average intelligence.
y
• In applying this test the statement complained of
has to be read as a whole and the words used in it
andto be given their natural and ordinary meaning
are

which may be ascribed to them by ordinary man.

• It is a matter of impression an ordinary man gets
on the first reading not on a later analysis.

9
• When the statement causes anyone to be regarded
with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike
or disesteem, it is defamatory. Mere hasty expression
spoken in anger or vulgar abuse to which no listener
would attribute any set purpose to injure character
would not be actionable.
• No action for damages can lie for mere insult. But if
they likely cause ridicule and humiliation, they are
actionable.
• Humour can also be made an instrument of
defamation except when it is good-natured fun. But
when it carries a sting and causes adverse merriment
it may become defamatory.
• The defamatory statement must be false. In an
action for defamation, the falsity of the charge is
BOY
presumed in the plaintiffs favour. The burden of proof
i

that the words are false does not lie upon the
plaintiff. Truth is an absolute defence to an action
for defamation.
10
# South India Railway Co. v. Ramakrishna
Facts: the railway guard while checking the tickets
and calling upon the plaintiff to produce his ticket
said to him in the presence of other passengers, “I
suspect you are travelling with a wrong ticket.” The
plaintiff produced the ticket which was in order.
Held: the word spoken by the guard were spoken
Bona fide and under the circumstances of the case
there was no defamation.

❖ INNUENDO
• Sometimes a statement a prima facie be innocent i.e.
natural and ordinary meaning but because of some
latent or secondary meaning i.e. innuendo, it may be
considered to be defamatory.
• Such statements are often couched in subtle
language.
11
• Words which are not defamatory in the ordinary sense
may convey a defamatory meaning owing to the
particular circumstances in which they are spoken.
Eg. A statement that a lady has given birth to a
child is defamatory when the lady is unmarried.
• Knowledge or intention to defame is not necessary.
‣ Where the words are defamatory the question of
intention yeof motive with which they are used is
quite ain material.
‣ Good faith or ignorance of the defamatory nature
of the statement is no defence, for a man utters
defamatory statements at his peril.
‣ Liability for defamation does not depend on the
intention of the defamer but on the fact of
defamation.
‣ Proof of intention, may however, be material on
the question of damages.
12
 Dependant on the

• When the words are considered to be defamatory by

listener

the person to whom the statement is published there

is defamation, even though the persons making the
statement believed it’s to be innocent.
# Cassidy v. Mirror Newspaper Ltd
Facts: Mr. Cassidy did not live with his lawful
wife but occasionally came and stayed with her at
her flat. The defendants published in the newspaper
a photograph of Mr Cassidy and Miss X with the
following words underneath: “Mr M Cassidy, the
race house owner, and Miss X, whose engagement
has been announced.” Mrs Cassidy sued the
defendants for libel alleging that the innuendo was
that Mr Cassidy was not her husband and he
lived with her in immoral cohabitation. Some female
acquaintances of the plaintiff gave evidence that they
had formed a bad opinion of her as a result of the
publication.

13
 Held: The innuendo was established. Obvious
innocence of the defendants was no defence.
• The rule that it is no defence to an action for libel
liable
or slander to show the absence of any intention to
defame is now modified. An innocent author can I
void his liability by proving:
a

‣ That the words which had been published by him

were published innocently and
‣ That as soon as he came to know that these
words published by him resulted in the
defamation of the plaintiff, an offer of amends (a
suitable correction and an apology) was made.
• In India the law is possibly the same.

14
 THE WORDS MUST REFER TO THE
PLAINTIFF
BOP
• In every action of defamation, the plaintiff must
prove that the statement refers to him.
• The question is not who was meant but rather who
was hit. The question is not what the defendant
really intended in his heart but what the words,
taken with the relevant circumstances and fairly
construed, mean.
• If the words published are taken to be referring to
the plaintiff the defendant will be liable and it will
be no defence that the defendant did not intend to
defame the plaintiff.
# Hulton & Co. v Jones
Facts: The defendants, newspaper proprietors,
published a fictional article in the newspaper by
which imputations were cast on the morals of a
fictitious person - Artemis Jones. A real person of
15
 by that name brought an action for libel. His
friends, who read that article, swore that they
believe that the article referred to him.
Held: The defendants were liable.
❖ DEFAMATION OF A CLASS OF PERSONS
• Definition is an injury to a man’s reputation, which
amation

is a right in rem.
• By its very nature, reputation for the purpose of the
law of torts is that of an individual and not a class
of persons.
# Eastwood v. Homes
Held: When the words refer to a group of
individuals or a class of persons, no member of that
group or class can sue unless he can prove that the
words could reasonably be considered to be referring
to him. Thus, “ If a man wrote that all lawyers
were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him
16
 unless there was something to point to the particular
individual.

❖ DEFAMATION OF CORPORATION/
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
• A corporation, being a fictitious person, cannot in the
nature of things, be brought into hatred, ridicule or
contempt by any manner of falsehood.
• When a libel has been made against a corporation, it
is in fact, the individuals composing it and not the
corporation in its aggregate capacity, whose reputation
has been injured. A corporation, therefore, cannot sue
for defamation affecting personal reputation only. It is
the individual members who have a cause of action.
• A corporation can sue if the defamation is of such a
nature that its tendency is to cause actual damage
to the corporation in respect of its property and
business.
17
• It may be noted that no suit for defamation is
maintainable by a partnership firm as it is not a
legal person. The individual partners may bring a suit
in such a case.

❖ DEFAMATION OF THE DECEASED

• Defaming a deceased person is no tort.
• Under criminal law, 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/other near relatives (s.499, Explanation,
IPC ).
Actio personalis moritur cum persona - A
personal right of action dies with the person.

18
 THE WORDS MUST BE
PUBLISHED
It is the publication and not the mere speaking or
writing of defamatory words, which is the gist of the
wrong of defamation.
Publication means making the defamatory matter known
to some person other than the person defamed.
Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough
because defamation is injury to the reputation and
reputation consists in the estimation in which others hold
him and not a man’s own opinion of himself.
Thus, it does not matter that it may injure his self-
esteem.
Sending the defamatory letter to the plaintiff is no
defamation. It is defamation only if more than two
persons are involved.

19
In other words, there must be communication to at least
a third person (even a single individual).
If a third person wrongly reads a letter meant for the
plaintiff the defendant is not liable. It is no publication
as it is unauthorised. But if defamatory letter sent to
the plaintiff is likely to be read by someone else (e.g.
clerk or spouse), in the ordinary course of business, there
is a publication.
The publication need not be intentional. It may be
negligent as well.
In the eyes of law, husband and wife are one person
and the communication of a defamatory matter concerning
a third person from the husband to the wife or vice
versa is no publication.
# T J Ponnen v. M C Verghese
Facts: The question was whether a letter from the
husband to the wife containing defamatory matter
concerning the father-in-law could be proved in an
20
 action by the father-in-law against his son-in-law.
His wife had passed on those letters to her father.
The husband contended that the letters addressed
by him to his wife are not, except with his consent,
admissible in evidence by virtue of section 122 of the
evidence act.
Held: The husband is liable for defamation but the
defamatory statement has to be proved from evidence
other than that of the wife.
It is important to note that communication of a matter
defamatory of one spouse to the other is sufficient
publication. Thus, where defamatory matter concerning a
husband is published to his wife by a third person an
action can be maintained. The husband and wife are
regarded as distinct and different persons.
A street news vendor is not supposed to know the
contents of the newspaper he sells. Ordinarily, therefore
he is not liable. But if with a view to attract customers
21
he shouts the libellous matter contained in the newspaper,
he would be liable.

DEFENCES TO DEFAMATION
• The defences to an action for definition are:
amation

(1) Justification or truth.

(2) Fair comment.
(3) Privilege (absolute or qualified).

JUSTIFICATION OR TRUTH
• In a civil action for defamation truth of the
defamatory matter is a complete defence.
• Under criminal law, besides being true the imputation
invitation
must be shown to have been made for public good.

22
• The reason for the defence is that “the law will not
permit a man to recover damages in respect of an
injury to a character which he either does not or
ought not to possess”.
• The defence is available even though the publication
was made maliciously.
• Also, it is immaterial in law that the defendant
made a defamatory statement without knowing of its
truth, as long as it turns out to be true when made.
• However, if the statement is false, it is no
justification that the defendant honestly or on
reasonable grounds believed it to be true.
• If the defendant is not able to prove the truth of
the facts, the defence cannot be availed.
# Radheyshyam Tiwari v. Eknath
Facts: The defendant, who was editor, printer and
publisher of a newspaper published a series of
23
 articles against the plaintiff, a block development
officer, alleging that the plaintiff had issued false
certificates, accepted bribes and adopted illegal means
in various matters. In an action for defamation, the
defendant could not prove that the facts published
by him were true.
Held: He was held liable for defamation.
• If there are several charges and the defendant is
successful in proving the truth regarding some of the
charges only, the defence of justification may still be
available if the charges not proved do not materially
injure the reputation.

FAIR COMMENT
• It is generally a defence available to authors, editors,
critics, etc.
• To ‘comment’ means to critically analyse existing facts.
24
• It is critical appreciation of existing facts and not
invention of new facts.
• The word ‘fair’ in the expression ‘fair comment’
embraces the meaning of ‘honest’ (without malice) and
also of ‘relevant’.
• Finally, this comment must be in public interest.
‣ Administration of government departments, public
companies, public institutions and local authorities,
public meetings, pictures, theatres, public
entertainment, textbooks, novels, etc are considered
to be matters of public interest.
• The privilege does not extend to false remarks on the
private character of the individual.
• ‘Comment’ means an expression of opinion on certain
facts rather than making a statement of fact.

25
• A fair comment is a defence by itself whereas if it
is a statement of fact that can be excused only if
justification or privilege is proved regarding that.
‣ For example, if A says of a book published by
Z -“Z’s book is foolish: Z must be a weak
man.” It is a comment based on Z‘s book and
he will be protected if he has said that in good
faith. But if a says-“I am not surprised that
Z’s book is foolish, for he is a weak man.” It
is not a comment but a statement of fact and
cannot be called a fair comment.
# Mcquire v. Western Morning News Co.
Facts: The comment is question was “a three act
musical absurdity, written and composed by TC
Mcquire is composed of nothing but nonsense of a
not very humorous character, whilst the music is far
from attractive.”
Held: the words may be fairly called criticism.
26
• Fair does not mean fair by standards of an ordinary
reasonable man, rather the critic has liberty so long as
his comment can come within the gamut of criticism.
Legitimate criticism is not a tort.
• Mere exaggeration or even exaggeration would not make
the comment unfair.
• Liberty of criticism must be allowed or one would
neither have purity of taste nor of morals.
• However, criticism could not be used as a cloak for
mere invective (sarcasm or satire) nor for personal
imputations not arising out of the subject matter or
not based on fact.
• The comment could not be fair when it is based upon
and true facts.
• Whether a comment is fair or not depends upon
whether the defendant honestly held that particular
opinion.
27
 at odd

‣ If the comment is distorted due to malice on at

part of the defendant, his comment ceases to be
fair and such a defence cannot be taken.
‣ Further, facts upon which the comment is
founded must be truly stated though later on
they may not turn out to be true at all.

PRIVILEGE
• There may be circumstances under which it is right
that one should speak about another and state fully
and freely what he honestly believes to be the truth
as to his character and conduct. On such occasions
when the law recognises that the right of free speech
outweighs the plaintiff’s right to reputation: the law
treats such occasions to be “privileged” and a
defamatory statement made on them is not actionable.
• When a person stands in such a relation to the
facts of the case that he is justified in saying or
28
 writing what would be slanderous or libellous in the
case of anyone else, he is said to have a privilege.
• Privilege maybe either ‘Absolute’ or ‘Qualified’.

❖ ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE
• It is an absolute defence as under it no action lies
for the defamatory statement even though the
statement is false or has been made maliciously.
• In such cases the public interest demands that an
individual‘s right to reputation should give way to the
freedom of speech.
• It is recognised in Parliamentary proceedings, judicial
proceedings, military and naval proceedings and state
communications.
• Thus, a statement made by one officer of the state
to another in the course of official duty is absolutely
privileged for reasons of public policy.
29
• Article 105(2) of the Constitution provides that
‣ Statements made by members of either House of
Parliament and
‣ The publication by or under the authority of
either House of Parliament on any report paper,
votes or proceedings, cannot be questioned in a
court of law.
• A similar privilege exists in respect of state
legislatures according to Article 194 (2).
• Thus, anything said in the House, however injurious
it may be to the interest of third persons, cannot be
examined outside the House as evidence.
• In judicial proceedings there can be no action against
judges, councils, witnesses or parties for words (written
or spoken) in course of any proceedings before any
court, even though the words were written or spoken
maliciously, without any justification or excuse.
30
• The privilege extends to all pleadings and affidavits.
• However, a remark by a witness which is wholly
irrelevant to the matter of enquiry is not privileged.
• Also criminal prosecution will lie for perjury if the
witness intentionally gives false evidence.

❖ QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
• It is different from the defence of absolute privilege
in two respects.
‣ In this case it is necessary that the statement
must have been made without malice.
- Absolute privilege is not affected by the
presence of express malice; it is protected in
all circumstances, independently of the presence
of good or bad faith.

31
 - A qualified privilege is rebuttable by proof of
express malice on the part of the defendant.
- In a case of qualified privilege, the person
making a statement is not exempt from
enquiry altogether (as in the case of absolute
privilege) but the question of liability will be
determined by consideration of malice or
otherwise on his part.
‣ In qualified privilege, there must be an occasion
for making the statement.
- It is not sufficient to attract the protection
of qualified privilege that the subject matter
is one of general public interest.
- A privileged occasion (in reference to qualified
privilege) is an occasion where the person who
makes a communication has an interest or a
duty (legal, social or moral) to make it to the
person/public to whom it is made and the
32
 person/public to whom it is made has a
corresponding interest or a duty to receive it.
This reciprocity is essential.
• In the case of absolute privilege, it is the occasion
which is privileged and when once the nature of the
occasion is shown, it follows, as a necessary inference,
that every communication on that occasion is protected.
But, in the case of qualified privilege, the defendant
cannot prove privilege until he has shown how the
occasion was used. It is not enough to have an
interest or a duty in making a communication; the
interested duty was be shown to exist in making the
communication complained of.
• The principle on which the qualified privileges based is
that such communications are protected for the common
convenience and welfare of the society.
• Generally such a privilege is available either when the
statement is made in discharge of duty or protection
of an interest or the publication is in the form of
33
 report of Parliamentary, judicial or other public
proceedings.
• Communications made pursuant to a duty owed to
society relate to the character of servants, confidential
and private matters and information as to crime, etc.
• Example- 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 protected if he has made this
imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of
his own interests.
• Fair and accurate reports of judicial/quasi-judicial
proceedings possess qualified privilege.
‣ The reports must be fair and substantially correct
account or what took place in the court.
‣ ‘Report’ must be distinguished from ‘comment’.
If they are mixed, there is no privilege.
34
 ‣ A fair and accurate report of any proceedings or
debates on either House of Parliament or
legislature of state or in any committee of such
parliament or legislature, is privileged even though
it contains matter defamatory of an individual.
‣ If the subject of such proceedings is of the
public interest, legitimate criticism, made in a
newspaper, is also protected.
• Malice
‣ In the case of a qualified privilege, no suit will
lie upon a statement even though it is false and
defamatory unless the plaintiff proves express
malice.
‣ The presence of malice destroy the defence of
qualified privilege.
‣ Malice means making use of privileged occasion for
an indirect/improper or evil motive.
35
‣ Such malice can be proved by plaintiff in a
variety of ways, inter-alia
- By showing that the writer did not honestly
believe in the truth of these allegations or
that he believed the same to be false or
- That the writer is moved by hatred or dislike
or a desire to injure the subject of the libel
and
- By showing that out of anger, prejudice or
wrong motive, the writer castes aspersions on
other people recklessly whether they are true
or false.
‣ The plaintiff must prove ‘actual’ or ‘express malice’
or ‘malice in fact’ (i.e. actually wrong state of
mind) as distinguished from ‘implied malice’ which
the law presumes from the mere publication of
defamatory matter.

36
 BURDEN OF PROOF
• The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
‣ Thus, for pleading and innuendo, the plaintiveff
must make out the special circumstances which
made the words actionable and he must set forth
in his pleadings the defamatory sense, he
attributes to them.
• When the defence to definition
auction is taken, the burden
of proof is on the defendant.
• In a defence of justification or truth, the defendant
must make clear in the particulars of justification the
case which he is seeking to set up and must state
clearly the meaning or meanings which he seeks to
justify.
• In a defence fair comment, the defendant has to
show that his comments contain no miss statements of
fact.
37
• In a defence of privilege (qualified), the defendant
has to prove that the occasion is privileged. If the
defendant proves it, the burden of showing ‘actual or
express malice’ or ‘malice in fact’ is cast upon the
plaintiff.
• it is important to know that it is not necessary to
prove the actual loss of reputation; it is sufficient to
establish that the defamatory statements could
damage one’s reputation.
• In case of joint publication each defendant is liable
for all the ensuing damage (The writer, the editor,
the printer etc). However booksellers, newspaper
Wenders or librarians are generally not liable.
• If the defamatory statement is repeated i.e.
published again and again, a fresh cause of action
arises every time.
• Who can sue

38
 ‣ The person defamed.
‣ The fact that defamatory statement has caused
damage to other persons does not entitle them to
sue. Thus a brother brother cannot sue for
slander of a sister.

REMEDIES FOR DEFAMATION

• A suit for damages is the commonest form of remedy
in the case of defamation.
• Further, the publication of defamatory matter may
also be restrained by an injunction under the
provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• As defamation is also a crime, the wrongdoer can
also be punished under the IPC.
• For the aggravation of damages, the plaintiff must
prove aggravating circumstances e.g. malice, gross
39
 negligence, violence of language, excessive publicity,
repetition of libel, publicly publishing fresh libels before
or after the suit, refusal or neglect to retract or
apologise etc.
• For the mitigation of damages, the defendant must
prove mitigating circumstances e.g. apology by the
defendant at the earliest opportunity, acts showing
absence of malice or of gross negligence, like an
inadvertent publication, innocent repetition of a libel,
mentioning the name of the informant, provocation by
the plaintiff, bad reputation of the plaintiff, etc.

APOLOGY

English Law
• It is a good defence. The defendant must prove:
‣ That the words which had been published by him
were published innocently and
40
 ‣ That as soon as he came to know that these
words published by him resulted in the
defamation of the plaintiff, an offer of amends (a
suitable correction and an apology) was made.
Indian Law
• If an apology tendered by the defendant and
accepted by the plaintiff, the former can resist the
plaintiff’s suit for defamation.
• However, publishing a contradiction and expressing
regret over the mistake does not by itself amount to
an apology.

41
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

CIVIL WRONG OFFENCE

It is a civil wrong. It is a criminal offence,

which is bailable, non-
cognizable and
compoundable.
It is based on tort law- It has been defined as
an area of law which has an offence under Section
no statutes to define 499 and the punishment
wrongs and relies completely for the same is given in
on case laws to define Section 500 of the
wrongs. Indian Penal Code,
1860.

42
It provides redressal to It seeks to punish the
the plaintiff by awarding offender and send a
damages in the form of message to the society not
monetary compensation from to commit such an offence.
the accused.

Damages are awarded on The offence of

the basis of probabilities. defamation has to be
established beyond a
reasonable doubt.
It is generally a slow The plaintiff can move to
process to seek relief in criminal court and ask
India. the offender to take
cognizance of his
complaint.
Defences: 3 Defences: 10
+ General Defences + General Defences
43
A person found guilty can A person found guilty
be penalized only by can be punished with
making him pay damages. imprisonment up to two
years or fine or with
both.

44
Defamation 1
Introduction 1
# Dixon v. Holden 1
Libel & Slander 3
Difference between Libel & Slander 4
Essentials of Defamation 8
The words must be Defamatory & False 8
# South India Railway Co. v. Ramakrishna 11
❖ Innuendo 11
# Cassidy v. Mirror Newspaper Ltd 13
The Words must refer to the Plaintiff 15
# Hulton & Co. v Jones 15
❖ Defamation of a Class of Persons 16
# Eastwood v. Homes 16
❖ Defamation of Corporation/Partnership Firm 17
❖ Defamation of the Deceased 18
The Words must be Published 19
# T J Ponnen v. M C Verghese 20
Defences to Defamation 22
Justification or Truth 22
# Radheyshyam Tiwari v. Eknath 23
Fair Comment 24
# Mcquire v. Western Morning News Co. 26
Privilege 28
❖ Absolute Privilege 29
❖ Qualified Privilege 31
• Malice 35
Burden of Proof 37
Remedies for Defamation 39
Apology 40
English law 40
Indian law 41

45
Difference between Civil and Criminal Defamation 42

46
47