FACTS

Samir, an influential actor who is known to work with animal shelters and is reputed for his
charitable work and donations. He has his own organisation that rescues dogs. He remains in
touch with a journalist for whom he confirms Bollywood rumours about himself and hence
has her email ID, he intended to send his friend Sanjay an email about the dog fights hes
hosting but accidentally sends it to Sanjana, who in turn hires a private investigator to find
the underground dog fighting arena owned and operated by Samir where bets were being
made over the dogs that were rescued by Samirs foundation. Sanjana published an article
about Samir stating that he uses the dogs for bloodsport.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Question 1
Can Samir, as a public figure, maintain a defamation suit against Sanjana?
Question 2
Assuming a prima facie case of defamation can be maintained, can Sanjana successfully
claim the defense of public interest?

BRIEF ANSWER
Question 1
Can Samir, as a public figure, maintain a defamation suit against Sanjana?
Samir can maintain a defamation lawsuit against Sanjana because she does requisite the
elements of defamation which are:1. Words intended to be read.
2. Publishing any imputation concerning a person.
3. Having reason to believe such imputation will harm the reputation of such person.
Sanjana published the article in a newspaper, fulfilling the first element, as she intends any
subscriber of the news to read this. She implicates Samir as a hypocrite who only rescues

dogs in order to use them for bloodsport and bets, fulfilling the second element. Considering
that Samir is a famous actor and donates largely to charities helping animals and has an
organization that rescues dogs, such implications will damage his reputation deeply, which
fulfils the last element of defamation. The publication of this article will hit not only the
plaintiff but also the working of his organization, the people attached to the plaintiff in terms
of business.
Question 2
Assuming a prima facie case of defamation can be maintained, can Sanjana successfully
claim the defence of public interest?
She cannot claim the defence of public interest. The contents of the article are not true since
the publisher of the article have no conclusive evidence so as to prove her claim. The
question of public interest does not come in the picture as the plaintiff runs a charitable
organization for saving and sheltering dogs. The defendant in the present matter failed to
communicate or wait for a comment of the plaintiff over such a serious allegation and
published the column the very next day. The heading and the contents of the article were
purely defamatory in nature as they formed an opinion in the minds of the reader and did not
leave scope for the reader to form an opinion after stating unaltered facts. The defendant also
relied only on the information provided to her by a private investigator which does not
qualify as an admissible report in the court of law. The defendant cannot claim the defence of
public interest as the primary concern that she stated in her column was the hypocrisy of Mr.
Samir and, according to her animal cruelty. Matters of public interest contains matters in
which public is legitimately concerned or interested. The defendant has failed, in her article,
to attract any aspect of public interest which would qualify her to obtain the defence of public
interest in the defamatory article.
Therefore, for the forgoing reasons, the defendant shall be liable for defamation and cannot
claim the defence of public interest.

DISCUSSION

There is a huge debate amongst many law scholars surrounding the complicated yet highly
controversial tort of defamation. Finding a definition for defamation is extremely difficult.
Furthermore there is no principled and theoretically coherent statement of law regarding what
defamation and what is regarded as defamatory. This is augmented by Prosser in where he
states, There is a great deal of the law of defamation which makes no sense. Lord Reid in
the case Cassell & Co. Ltd v Broome1 describes the role of judges as: . It is their function to
enunciate principles and much that they say is intended to be illustrative or explanatory and
not be definitive. Nevertheless a definition for defamation has been given as: The
publication of a statement which reflects on a persons reputation and tends to lower him in
the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or
avoid

him.

When it comes to the genuine admission of such allegations, the following must be taken into
consideration:
First, the allegations must concern a matter of some importance in which the public has a
significant interest. Very often, the allegations will concern criminal behaviour, and the
alleged crimes must be sufficiently severe or have a sufficient connection to public concerns.
This does not mean that acts which do not constitute criminal behaviour could not justify a
public scrutiny by the press, but again, the allegations of non-criminal behaviour must be
sufficiently severe to justify a public reporting. An important element in this assessment will
be whether the allegations concern individuals who consciously seek the publics attention
and, consequently, whose behaviour is more likely to be of public concern.
Second, the press may only report the allegations if there are sufficient proven facts to
support them. The press has an obligation to diligently research those facts. The available
evidence must allow the assumption that there is a certain degree of likelihood that the
allegations are true. The threshold for a sufficient factual support of the allegations will
depend on their seriousness. The courts will require a stronger factual support for allegations
that are particularly severe and thus more likely to harm the reputation of the individual
strongly.

1 [1972] AC 1136.

Simple indications that may or may not support a certain allegation will never be sufficient to
justify the publication of allegations of a defamatory nature.
Third, the press must clearly and unambiguously report the circumstances as currently unproven allegations. It must not create the impression the matter is settled, that the defendant is
indeed guilty or that the facts supporting the allegations are stronger than they actually are.
The report must not be sensationalist, but must be open and balanced in order to allow the
reader to form its own opinion.
Fourth, the press is obligated to report all exonerating circumstances. It must have given the
individual a chance to comment on the matter and must of course report the individuals
response. This requirement is taken very seriously. For example, it is not sufficient to call the
individual and cease all efforts to obtain a comment if the person is not immediately
available.

Matters of public interest contains matters in which public is legitimately concerned or

interested. These envelop a wide spectrum of subjects and individuals. In modern times the
ambit of public interest has encompassed everything relating to national, state or local
governments, the administration of public and private institutions, and the public conduct of
public officials, clergyman, judges, advocates, political candidates and agitators who take part
in public affairs. The conduct of all civil and criminal actions in courts, the decisions of
Judges and the evidence of witnesses can properly be commented upon when the trial is over.

CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, Samir can bring about a defamation suit because Sanjana published the article
with a biased tone, she did not allow Samir to even comment or reply to the allegation before
she posted it, based on the word of a private investigator and finally, she knew that his
reputation as an actor and an activist will be damaged since she published this in a
newspaper.

Sanjana cannot maintain a defence of public interest as her article is biased, the protection of
dogs does not fall under public priority and she has no conclusive evidence besides the a
single report and a message that she accidentally received.