With the recent action of the Surat Court on Rahul Gandhi’s statement made in 2019, the case filed against him got a massive reaction from the public as well as the Parliament. He was sentenced to two years of jail and disqualified as a Member of Parliament. What Rahul Gandhi did have been discussed in the previous blog, but the concept of defamation has been explained thoroughly in this blog. So, learners!! Keep scrolling the blog!
What is Defamation?
Defamation is dealt under Section 499 of the IPC. When someone makes or publishes an incorrect or inaccurate statement, accusation, or false imputation about another person, whether through words, oral communication, visual cues, or any other means, it is referred to as defaming that person.
Three necessary factors must be present for defamation to occur in accordance with Section 499 of the IPC.
A claim or imputation must meet two requirements:
1. It must be made with the intent to injure the person against whom it is made; and
2. It must be made by Whether verbally, in writing, by signs, or visually.
3. Making such accusations public
Punishment for Defamation according to Section 500 IPC
Section 500 of the Indian Criminal Code outlines the punishment for the crime of defamation. This section outlines the penalties for defamation, which include simple imprisonment with a maximum sentence of two years, a fine, or both.
Exceptions of Defamation
Section 499 covers the definition of defamation and specific situations in which making a false remark about another person does not constitute defamation. Defamation is exempt from the following situations:
1. Imputation of Truth That Must Be Made or Published for the Benefit of the Public
It does not amounts to defamation if a factual imputation or accusation is made about a person. Nonetheless, it must be done in the public interest.
2. A Public Servant's Public Behaviour
It does not constitute to defamation if an opinion is made in good faith (Good intention) on how public employees behave while doing their duties.
3. How Anybody Should Act While Answering a Public Question
It does not amount to defamation if the opinion is made in good faith & about the behaviour of people who engages in public discourse or performs official duties.
For instance, it is not defamatory for publicists to participate in politics or other concerns affecting the public in good faith.
4. Publishing reports of court proceedings
Posting a report of a court of justice's proceedings or the outcome of those proceedings that is largely authentic does not constitute defamation.
5. The Court's decision regarding the case's merits, witness behaviour, and other factors related to the case
It is required to make an unfettered statement of the court rulings, jury verdict, actions of the parties, and testimony of the witnesses. Hence, it is not defamatory to express an opinion about the merits of a case that has been adjudged by a court of justice or about the behaviour of the parties or witnesses.
6. Public Performance's Benefits
This exception includes critiques on books (published) on art, music, and other subjects. Expressing an honest opinion about the benefits of a performance that its creator has allowed a public judge is not considered slander.
7. The Court's decision regarding the case's merits, witness behaviour, and other factors related to the case
It is required to make an unfettered statement of the court rulings, jury verdict, actions of the parties, and testimony of the witnesses. Hence, it is not defamatory to express an opinion about the merits of a case that has been decided by a court of justice or about the behaviour of the parties or witnesses.
8. Public Performance's Benefits
This exception includes critiques on published books on music, art, and other subjects. Expressing an honest opinion about the benefits of a performance that its creator has let the public judge is not considered slander.
9. Warning Designed to Serve the Interest of the Person to Whom Conveyed or the Interest of the Public
Any warning or caution that is stated in good faith to another individual or to the general public does not amounts to defamation.
Types of Defamation
There are two types of defamation:
1. Libel
2. Slander
Difference between libel and Slander
The information concerning the distinction between libel and slander is provided here.
• Libel is a form of permanent defamation, whereas slander is defamation in a transitory form.
• Words said after being provoked are sometimes referred to as slander.
• In libel, the real publisher is not culpable; he may be innocent. In slander, the individual who uses the word must be guilty voluntarily.
It is important to keep in mind that in India, both libel and slander are considered crimes with no differentiation between the two.
"Any intentionally false statement, either spoken or written, that harms a person's reputation; diminishes the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person" is what is meant by defamation in civil law. Salmond argues that publishing a false and disparaging comment about another person without legal basis constitutes the crime of libel.
Criminal versus civil defamation
Slander comes in both written and verbal forms. Libel is the term for written defamation, whereas slander is the phrase for spoken defamation. For both crimes, the same IPC clause is in effect.
Defamation may result in civil or criminal penalties. In spite of India's lack of a codified defamation law, the injured party may sue under English common law, subject to some legislative restrictions.
Civil litigation is not an option if the defamation was caused by oral words. As an illustration, the press or newspapers are more likely to just use written and printed forms of libel.
Case Laws
In Thiagaraya vs. Krishnaswami, 1892, the Madras High Court ruled that when defamatory material is transmitted or broadcast, it counts as publishing, regardless of whether it is written on a postcard or printed on paper.
In Maulik Kotak v. State of Maharashtra, 2014, the Bombay High Court ruled that only the individual who was wronged and defamed may file a defamation complaint.