Concise whistleblower view of criminal and civil defamation law in India

This is a concise account of criminal and civil defamation law in India from an honest whistleblower's perspective, and as I have understood it (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer). It is presumed that the whistleblower exposes truth or what he/she considers to be the truth. In other words, the whistleblower does not write/say deliberate falsehood.

Defamation cases can be filed both as a criminal case as well as a civil case in Indian courts of law (even for the same offence). But the legal procedure and legal view of them are different.

Criminal Defamation

1) Criminal defamation is covered by section 499 and section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence has maximum punishment of simple imprisonment of up to 2 years with/without a fine. The fine is paid to the government, I believe, and is not a compensation to the complainant.

2) Complainant has to first prove in a court of law that he/she was defamed.

3) If the complainant is able to convince the court that there is a case of defamation then the court will issue a summons to the accused (whistleblower in this case) to appear in court and provide his/her defense. Note that police cannot file an F.I.R. (First Information Report) and arrest an accused in criminal defamation without a directive from the court.

4) If the complainant is NOT able to convince the court about the defamation case then the case is dismissed. The whistleblower would not even be called to court.

5) On a summons being issued to a whistleblower (accused of defamation), he/she has to appear in court and provide a defense (through a lawyer typically). As part of criminal procedure, the whistleblower who now will be an accused in a criminal case will have to pay a bail bond and/or surety bond (say of Rs. 10,000/- each) to avoid being kept in judicial custody.

6) Truth (that can be supported with evidence in court) is NOT an absolute defense in criminal defamation.

7) Truth (that can be supported with evidence in court) with "public good" and/or "good faith" (due care and attention) is a defense in criminal defamation under various Exceptions of section 499 of IPC.

8) Criminal defamation is not treated as a serious offence (it is a compoundable offence), and allows for compromise between complainant and defendent (whistleblower). Once a compromise is accepted by the court it is as if the defendent (whistleblower) has been acquitted of all charges (of criminal defamation).

Civil Defamation

1) There is no statute (code in Indian law) for civil defamation. The rules of of equity, justice, and good conscience must be applied. Rules of English Law if found applicable to Indian society and circumstances, are considered. These seem to be referred to as Tort law which is defined in http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law as "A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others."

2) Truth (that can be supported with evidence in court) is a complete defense against civil defamation.

3) Fair comment on a matter of public interest is a defense.

4) Published apology may be a defense.

5) The basis for calculation of monetary compensation/award of damages under civil defamation in India is not clear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This post is based on information from the following two posts of mine:

a) 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]

b) Civil Defamation Law in India, https://ravisiyermisc.blogspot.com/2016/05/civil-defamation-law-in-india.html, dated 25th May 2016