For the court to conclude on the above-mentioned case whether the act by Maya can be held as defamation or not they will need to check if the following principles have been checked or not:
- Defamatory statement: the court will first check whether the speech/ article/ post/ words upon which the case has been filed are defamatory or not. So the first and foremost task that is done by the court is to check whether the alleged words are defamatory in the real sense or not and how a reasonable man would look and understand it. Will it be considered defamatory in the perspective of the reasonable person or not?
- Identification: if from the statement the considered person is identifiable or not. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the person's name has to be explicitly mentioned rather if they are also identifiable then it can be considered.
- Publication: the alleged statement must be published and with published it means that it should come to the knowledge of a 3rd party sparing the accused and the victim. The means of communication to the 3rd person isn't necessarily stated. Only the knowing of the statement to the 3rd party checks off the list.
- Harm to reputation: whether the statement has caused harm to the reputation of the considered person or not. Harm to reputation must also be checked off the box.
If Rahul can prove and make the judges check off everything then he has a fair chance that the suit will turn out in his favour.
There are certain defences that Maya can use to save herself and prove that she hasn't been indulged in defamation and those are:
- Truth as a defence: Maya can take the defence and state that whatever she has told in that statement constitutes the truth and not anything else. If the statement is found to be true then Maya can't be held liable for defamation.
- Freedom of media: Maya can also claim freedom of media and media isn't restricted to display only those news that are filtered with everything they ought to be present to show the public at large the truth that is there. But there also comes an obligation that freedom of media doesn't allow anyone or everyone to sputter anything about anyone without having proof and if the statement is false then they can be held liable.
- Lack of malice: Maya can argue that whatever she did was in good faith and she didn't target Rahul particularly, it was done in good faith.
If the court found out that the statement was false, caused harm and Rahul was easily identifiable then the court will be favouring Rahul in the trial.
But if the court finds out that the statement is true, in good faith for the public at large and in line with the freedom of maya then she won't be held liable for the statement.
