All about Criminal Defamation in India

Introduction:

Our democratic system gives us a number of fundamental rights, the most important of which are the right to life [Article 19(1)(a)] and the freedom of speech and expression (Article 21). Together with these rights, the law imposes a number of restrictions to preserve peace and security, notably Article 19(2) of the Constitution and Sections (499-502) of the IPC. Unrestricted rights could be found to be harmful to the community. The right to reputation should be respected equally to our other fundamental rights, such as life, liberty, and property, because we live in a modern age when everyone has the right to live with dignity, honour, and integrity. Some legal protections against defamation were incorporated into our legislation to ensure this.

Meaning of criminal defamation:

Moving on to criminal defamation, the primary characteristic that sets a criminal case apart from a civil defamation case is the goals they seek to achieve. To be more specific, Section 499 of the Indian Criminal Code specifically defines criminal defamation (IPC).

IPC Section 499

According to Section 499, defamation can occur when someone's reputation is harmed through words that are said or written with the intention of being read, signs, or visible representations that are published or spoken about that person, or when someone has enough knowledge to believe that the imputation will harm that person's reputation.

In this section, the words "makes or publishes" are underlined. The dissemination of imputation that causes harm is the core of the offence. When a defamatory statement is published, both the maker and the publisher are held accountable. Because the intent is to promote hate of others, it is imperative that the imputation be communicated to a third party in order to establish the offence.

Essential ingredients of criminal defamation:

The remarks must contain an allegation regarding a specific person or individuals whose identity may be determined. The individual does not have to be a single person.

In CL Sagar v. Mayawati (2003), it was alleged that a political party's vice president defamed the complaint by declaring in a public assembly that the party's member with the long moustache was corrupt. He was not the only member of the party with a long moustache, as claimed in the complaint. Such a claim was not made in the press summary of the conference. There was therefore no offence.

Exception of criminal defamation:

Imputation of truth that must be produced or disseminated for the benefit of the public

If the imputation is made or published for the advantage of the public, it is not considered defamation of character. Whether it is in the public interest or not is a question of fact.

The accused must show that the declaration he gave was accurate in both content and effect, not just in part, in order to be eligible for this exception. Investigating whether the publication sought to benefit the public as a whole or a segment of it is necessary to establish if the statement was released for the public good or not.

The property where the complainant's school is located, and run was the subject of a legal dispute between the parties in Rajendra Vishwanath Chaudhary v. Nayantara Durgadas Vasudeo (2012). The accused's caution to parents to enrol their children in the summer programme at their own risk could not be viewed as defamatory or harmful to the complainant's reputation while the case was still pending in civil court. Hence, it is unlikely that the aforementioned cautionary note constitutes an actionable imputation under Section 499 of the IPC, 1860.

Public servants' ethical behaviour

To express an opinion regarding a public servant's behaviour while carrying out his official duties or about his character to the degree that his character manifests in that behaviour and no more is not defamation.

As long as their remarks are not motivated by hatred, everyone has the freedom to voice their opinions on public authorities' decisions that impact him as a citizen of the nation. A comment must be founded on the actual facts in order to be considered fair.

Unless such imputations are supported by the facts, it should not be assumed that the individual whose behaviour or work is being criticised has corrupt or dishonest intentions.

It must be an accurate reflection of the author's real viewpoint.

It must serve the interests of all.

The Bombay High Court ruled in Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal v. Sheshrao Anandrao Lad (2011) that any remarks made by a government employee in the course of carrying out his duties would not be regarded as defamatory. The statement made by a Panchayat member is the subject of this lawsuit. Clause 5 of Section 21 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860 defines "public servant" as including a member of the Panchayat who assists a court of justice. As a result, the Panchayat members' opinions, which they offered in an effort to support the Court of Justice, do not amount to slander.

Any person's behaviour when dealing with a public issue

Expressing an opinion about someone's behaviour in relation to a public problem in good faith is not considered defamation, but one must respect that person's character only to the extent that it is demonstrated by that behaviour. Publicists who engage in politics or other issues impacting the public may face constructive criticism.

Comparative marketing A sort of speech that is protected by the Constitution's Article 19(1)(a) as part of the right to free expression and speech is "commercial speech," which includes commercial advertisements. Comparative advertising is a type of marketing in which one party advertises by contrasting its products or services with those of another.

Marketers are free to boast about their products' technological edge over that of rivals. He cannot, however, lower the quality of the rival's products in the process. If the advertisement involves a provocative campaign against a competitor's products, negative marketing is not allowed.

In Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. v. Raman Fibre Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2011), it was alleged that the respondents' business was defamed in an advertisement by the petitioner and its affiliated traders. The affiliated traders affirmed that they were solely responsible for carrying out the alleged advertisement and that the petitioner company was not involved. According to Section 500 of the Indian Criminal Code, the petitioner is not accused of any crimes (1860).

Publishing court proceedings' reports

It is not slandered to publish a report that is essentially factual about a Court of Justice's procedures or the outcome of any such proceedings.

A fair and accurate report of what happens during judicial proceedings that is held in open court before a lawfully constituted judicial panel may be published without prejudice.

The appellant in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2007) did business with the respondent's business. The appellant received a loan from Dena Bank. An initial application was filed against him at the Ahmedabad Debts Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of Rs. 120.13 lakhs because the debts were not paid back.

In the meantime, the respondent firm asserted claims against the managing director of the appellant company in light of the ongoing litigation. Given that a lawsuit was still continuing, the Supreme Court determined that the claim that the matter was being heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than the Ahmedabad City Civil Court was not inherently defamatory.

Court's judgement of the case's merits or the testimony of the witnesses and other parties involved

Expressing an opinion in good faith regarding the merits of a case that has been decided by a court of justice, the conduct of a party, witness, or agent in a case of this nature, or regarding the character of a person, to the extent that his character appears in that conduct, and no further, is not considered defamation.

Public discussion may be allowed regarding the court's ruling, the jury's decision, and the actions of the parties and witnesses. Nonetheless, criticism must be offered in a sincere and objective manner.

The question of whether the word "shatir" was defamatory was examined in Harbans Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1998.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that although the term "shatir" may be distasteful and offensive, it is not always defamatory. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the case.

Benefits of performing in public

Expressing an opinion in good faith regarding the quality of any performance that its creator has submitted for public review or about the author's character, insofar as it is revealed in such performance, and no farther, is not considered defamation.

This exception's main goal is to help the public evaluate the public performance that is the subject of the review. As long as the critiques are made in a fair and sincere manner, they can be made about any type of public performance. For the purposes of this exception, good faith necessitates proper care and attention rather than logical infallibility.

The prologue to a book written by the complaint was criticised by the appellant in Ranganayakamma v. K Venugopala Rao (1987). The appellant invoked Section 499 exceptions 6 and 9 in his defence. The petitioner's critique included a portion that utilises two defamatory phrases, but the Andhra High Court pointed out that this section has nothing to do with the content of the complainant's "Preface" at all. It is impossible to say that the slanderous statements were made in the public interest. As a result, the court found that neither the sixth nor the ninth exceptions applied to the petitioner.

Punishment under Section 502

According to Section 502 of the Indian Criminal Code, anyone who sells or plans to sell any written information that he knows or has reason to believe contains defamatory content faces penalties.

The punishment will either be a monetary fine or up to two years in jail. Both are sometimes applicable.

In the 2013 case of B.R.K. Murthy v. State of AP, the editor of a newspaper made defamatory remarks containing imputations without using sufficient care and attention or making any attempt to verify them before publishing. The comments were also not made in good faith.According to the court, the accusations made against the accused under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the IPC as well as Section 34 of the IPC, 1860, were true, and he was deemed to be responsible.

Conclusion:

Charges of criminal defamation may be filed in India concurrently or successively. The protection of a person's reputation is the goal of the laws against defamation. In a democracy, the right to free speech and expression are regarded as fundamental liberties that are not unrestricted but rather subject to some reasonable limitations, one of which is the prohibition against defamation. Both of these interests are highly valued in our culture, with the former being seen as our society's most prized quality and the latter as the cornerstone of a democratic society. The judiciary's primary concern is how to strike a balance between this objective and competing demands for freedom of speech and expression. Defamation must therefore be analysed from a different angle, with a different mindset, and with a distinctive ability to interpret linguistic meanings. Not to be forgotten is the judiciary's constant pursuit of a harmonious framework in such circumstances