Civil Defamation Law in India
Last updated on 26th May 2016
A few links and info. related to civil defamation law in India are given below.
1) Allahabad High Court, Rajindra Kishore Sahi vs Durga Sahi on 13 May, 1966, Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 All 476, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199292/
Extracts from the above:
The question whether the doctrine of absolute privilege should be applied to statements made in judicial proceedings in India was answered in a Full Bench of five judges of this court in Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das, 16 All. L.J. 360 : (AIR 1918 All. 69 F.B.). In this case it was observed that as there is no statute in India dealing with civil liability for defamation the rule to apply is that of justice, equity, and good conscience.
...
The Courts held that as there was no statute in India dealing with civil defamation, the rules of equity, justice, and good conscience must be applied and these rules meant those of the English Law if found applicable to Indian society and circumstances.
--- end extracts ---
[Ravi: So there seems to be NO STATUTE in India dealing with civil defamation law. end-Ravi]
2) http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Summary%20DefamationCivilCriminalFinal.pdf (23 page document) titled, SUMMARY Of Papers of Judicial Officers on DEFAMATION: ITS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
This document states that civil law of defamation is not codified in India, and that it is covered under Law of Torts.
Some of the defences available under civil defamation case (summarized below in my words) are as follows:
a) Truth (that can be supported with evidence in court) is a complete defense against civil defamation.
b) Fair comment on a matter of public interest.
c) Apology published for defamation may be viewed as a defense but, the mja.gov.in document states that one cannot be sure as in L. D. Jaikwal versus State of Uttar Pradesh, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/830334/, the Honourable Supreme court made some comments rejecting apology as a defense. Ravi: Here are the relevant extracts from the judgement document from above indiankaanon.org link:
"The appellant made a written application to the Judge couched in scurrilous language making the imputation that the Judge was a 'corrupt Judge' and added that he was 'contaminating the seat of justice'; and forwarded copies of the application, without occasion or need to the Administrative Judge, Chief Secretary and other authorities.
The High Court initiated contempt proceedings, found the appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under s. 2(c)(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and after affording full opportunity of hearing, imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one week and a fine of Rs. 500." ...
"Considerations regarding maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that the appellant should not escape with impunity on the mere tendering of an apology which in any case. does not wipe out the mischief. If such a apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, it would virtually be tantamount to issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. The High Court was justified in imposing a substantive sentence and the said sentence cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion." ...
"We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence, Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction."...
"He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doing so "as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." This circumstance in a way shows that it was a 'paper' apology and the expression of sorrow came from his pen, not from his heart. For, it is one thing to "say" sorry-it is another to "feel" sorry. It is in this context that we have been obliged to make the opening remarks at the commencement of this judgment."
3) http://copyright.lawmatters.in/2012/02/defamation.html[Ravi: Well, the above quotes are from a contempt of court case which involved defamation of a judge. I don't think the above example of an apology being rejected by Supreme Court will apply to civil defamation cases. end-Ravi]
A short extract from the above:
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, [according to Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th Edition; page 279].
--- end extract ---
4) http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation
5) http://www.slideshare.net/shantanu_leo/defamation-law-in-india
Ravi: I do not have a clear idea about how damages are awarded in Indian courts for civil defamation. Here's an article about how damages are calculated for civil defamation in the USA, How to Calculate Damages in a Slander Case, https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=38152. The article in the same site, Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law (related to USA), https://www.hg.org/defamation.html, is also interesting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may want to read the following blog posts:
1) Indian Supreme Court rejects petition arguing criminal defamation law as unconstitutional; Defamation law in India, https://ravisiyermisc.blogspot.com/2016/05/indian-supreme-court-rejects-petition.html, dated 14th May 2016 [Very long post]
2) Concise whistleblower view of criminal and civil defamation law in India, https://ravisiyermisc.blogspot.com/2016/05/concise-whistleblower-view-of-criminal.html, dated 26th May 2016
Comments
Post a Comment