Page 1 of 20

Page 2 of 20
OBJECTIVES
 To understand the meaning and the kinds of defamation
 To study the essentials of defamation
 To analyse the various defences to an action for defamation
 To have a deeper understanding of tort of defamation through various case laws

METHOD OF STUDY

The method used in the research for this paper is doctrinal. The theories have been
extracted from various sources including books, journals and websites. It was then
organized in a coherent manner and analyzed thoroughly following which it was arranged
in a logical structure. Hence, the objectives of the study were reached and the project
work was completed.

Page 3 of 20
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 R.K. Bangia, Law Of Torts, Twenty-Fourth Edition, 2017, Allahabad Law Agency,
Textbook: It covers various topics under defamation and explains the evolution of such
torts through various case laws. The concepts are explained in a brief and precise manner.

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, Twenty-Seventh Edition, 2016, edited by
Justice G.P. Singh, Lexis Nexis, Textbook: This book extensively covers the latest
developments in the Law of Torts through exhaustive notes and notable decisions of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts.

 Other sources including articles and internet

Page 4 of 20
 INTRODUCTION

Each and every person who is a part of this society has a certain level of reputation and self
respect that he intends to protect, preserve and maintain. This right is almost acknowledged
as an inherent personal right of a person and it can be said that the degree of damage caused
by the loss of reputation far exceeds that caused by the loss of material wealth. Hence, a
man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other property.1

The tort of defamation safeguards this right of an individual to reputation and provides them
with certain actions to recover damages if their reputation has been compromised due to a
statement made by another that is untrue and callous. Thus, defamation is a statement that is
expressly stated or implied to be factual and after the communication of which, an
individual’s reputation is damaged. Therefore, defamation can be defined as “The publication
of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the
estimation of right thinking members of society generally2 or tends to make them shun or
avoid him".3

There are two types of defamation, slander and libel. Slander is a form of defamation that
consists of making false oral statements that injure a person’s reputation whereas libel occurs
when defamation is caused due to written statements or visual representations.

In English Common Law, reputation is the most clearly protected and is remedied almost
exclusively in civil law by an award of damages after trial by a jury. However, reputation can
rarely be assessed in financial terms but the damages awarded in most defamation cases are
substantial because these awards reflect the juries’ ideas of the values of dignity and honour
as well as reputation.

However, the Law of Defamation like many other branches of tort law aims at balancing the
interests of the parties concerned. These are the rights that a person has to his reputation vis-
à-vis the right to freedom of speech. The Law of Defamation provides defences such as truth
and privilege, thus also protecting right of freedom of speech but at the same time marking

1
Dixon v. Holden, (1869) 7 Eq. 488
2
Sim v. Stretch (1936) 52 T.L.R. 669
3
Winfield, Tort, 12th ed., 293.

Page 5 of 20
the boundaries within which it may be limited. In India, tort law is obtained from British
Common Law and is uncodified. Therefore, the existing law relating to defamation places
reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and is saved by clause (2) of Article 19.

The wrong of defamation may be committed by making defamatory statements which are
calculated to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure him in his trade,
business, profession, calling or office, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided in society.
This is known as “publication” of the statement, which in its true legal sense means the
communication of defamatory matter to some person other than the person of whom it is
written.

TYPES OF DEFAMATION

LIBEL: It is the publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the
reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. It occurs when
defamation is caused due to written statements or visual representations. The statement must
be in a printed form, e.g., writing, printing, pictures, cartoons, statue, waxwork effigy etc.
This is a permanent form of defamation. It is addressed to the eye.
The ‘permanence’ requirement here doesn’t mean ‘forever’, but rather communication which
exists for longer than the time the original message is communicated. Thus, the courts have
gone as far as suggesting that skywriting can constitute libel since the writing takes time to
disperse.4
It should be noted that libel is also a criminal offence, as well as a tort. It is actionable per se.

SLANDER: A false and defamatory statement by spoken words and/or gestures tending to
injure the reputation of others. It also involves the sign language used by the physically
disabled. This is a transient form of defamation. It is non-permanent in nature and is
addressed to the ear. Slander is a civil wrong and not an offence.
Because of the non-permanence of the statements, they tend to have a lesser effect than
permanent statements, and hence a claimant must show that he has suffered a ‘special loss’,

4
Gulf Oil (GB) Ltd. v Page [1987] Ch 327

Page 6 of 20
in effect a loss which can be estimated in monetary terms. The courts however have stretched
this definition to include loss of a marriage prospect,5and loss of consortium.6
However, in certain exceptional situations such as follows, no proof of special damage is
required :
 If it is imputed that the claimant has committed a criminal offence punishable by
imprisonment;7
 If the statements are calculated to disparage the claimant in his or her profession,
business or office; 8
 An imputation of a contagious or infectious disease likely to prevent people from
associating with the claimant is actionable per se;
 Imputation of unchastity to a female is actionable per se by the virtue of Slander of
Women act, 1891.

5
Speight v Gosnay [1891] 60 LJQB 231
6
Lynch v Knight [1861] 9 HLC 777
7
Gray v Jones [1939] 1 All ER 798
8
Foulger v Newcomb [1867] LR 2 Ex. 327

Page 7 of 20
 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION

Regardless of whether a defamation action is framed in libel or slander, the plaintiff must
always prove that the words, pictures, gestures, etc. are defamatory. Equally, the plaintiff
must show that they refer to him. Finally he must also prove that they were maliciously
published. The following are the four essential elements in a defamation action and must
be proved by the claimant in order for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of
defamation:

1. THE STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY AND FALSE

The definition of a defamatory statement is found in the common law through reference to a
number of cases.
 The first one being put forward in the case of Parmiter v Coupland 9 where Parker B
defined it as “[a] publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is
calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing them to hatred, contempt or
ridicule”.
 This can be further read with the view advanced in Sim v Stretch10, where Lord Atkin
noted that the definition had widened to include words which “tend to lower the
plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”
It is imperative that a differentiation is made with regards to a defamatory statement and a
defamatory statement that is actionable. A genuine and true statement about a person may
be defamatory but if it is proved to be true, then it is not necessarily actionable. This is
with reference to the idea of the right to freedom of speech because in a state where the
freedom of expression is guaranteed, one should not be able to claim defamation if the
allegation made about him is true. Another instance where the statements are not
considered to be defamatory is when they are spoken with vitriol and in the heat of the
moment as they do not reflect on the character of the one being abused. It rather reflects
upon a person’s pride and not his reputation. A person of ordinary prudence is thus
expected to know the difference between a statement made out of anger and one made
calmly.11 However, if the insulting words are indeed a cause of humiliation, then they are
actionable as had happened in Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai, 12 where it was held that the

9
[1840] 6 M&W 105
10
[1936] 2 All ER 1237
11
Penfold v Westcote [1806] 2 B & P (NR) 335
12
[1969] Jab. L.J. 582 : (1969) M.P.L.J. 483 : 1970 Cr. L.J. 286 ( Madh. Pra.)

Page 8 of 20
 imputation by the defendant that the plaintiff, a widow of 45 years, is a keep of the
maternal uncle of the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law, is not a mere vulgar abuse but a definite
imputation upon her chastity and thus constitutes defamation.

Innuendo : Sometimes it so happens that the statement being used to defame may be
prima facie innocent but becomes defamatory because of some latent meaning. In such a
case, the plaintiff must prove the hidden meaning, which is the innuendo, if he wants to
file a suit for defamation. This means that an individual’s right to reputation is protected
from indirect attack from others, so that one cannot attempt to defame by the way of
innuendo i.e. one cannot attempt to defame an individual indirectly. Innuendo can be of
two types, true innuendo and false innuendo. True innuendo is where the persons to
whom the words were published had additional information about the context which
makes the words defamatory. For eg. Even “Y is a saint” can be defamatory if the
statement was understood to refer to a criminal gang known as “The Saints”.13
Another aspect of this tort is that the intention to defame is irrelevant and if the words are
considered to be defamatory by the persons to whom the statement is published, then
there is defamation as was stated in Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd. 14

2. THE STATEMENT MUST REFER TO THE CLAIMANT

It must be established that the defamatory statement is about the claimant. The plaintiff
has to prove that the statement which is claimed to be defamatory actually refers to
him/her either directly or indirectly. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to
defame the plaintiff, if the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably
infer that the statement referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable,15 as
was established in Hulton Co. v. Jones.16
If a statement is made about an individual which is true, but through coincidence also
applies to another individual for whom it is untrue, then a claim will still exist. This is
illustrated by Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd. 17

13
James : General Principles of the Law of Torts, 2nd ed., p.260
14
[1929] 2 K.B. 331
15
R.K. Bangia, Law Of Torts, Twenty-Fourth Edition, 2017, Allahabad Law Agency, p.156
16
[1902] 4 F. 654 ( a Scottish court of Session Decision)
17
[1940] 1 KB 377

Page 9 of 20
 There is a limit to this principle, because there comes a point at which a statement does
not refer to identifiable individuals, but to a class of persons. This can be seen
in Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers18. The claim here, failed because there was
nothing in the article personally identifying the claimant. Therefore, when the defamation
refers to a class of persons, no member of that group can sue unless he can prove that
there was something in the words which could be reasonably believed to be directed
towards him.

3. THE STATEMENT MUST BE PUBLISHED

For a statement to be considered published, it must be read, seen or heard by a third party
other than the person making the statement or the subject of such statement. That is, it has
to be communicated to atleast one person other than the claimant.This is referred to as
publication, although this term has a specific legal meaning. The definition can be found
in Pullman v W. Hill & Co Ltd.19 Lord Esher MR provided that “[t]he making known of
the defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of
whom it is written”. The third person should not be claimant’s wife in order for the
publication to occur. If the third party is claimant’s wife, then no publication is said to
have taken place because in the eyes of law, husband and wife are one person and the
communication of a defamatory matter from either of the parties to each other is no
publication at all.
Herein, communication to the plaintiff will not count because defamation is injury to the
reputation which rests in the estimation in which others hold him and not his own opinion
of himself. However, if a third party wrongfully reads a letter sent to the plaintiff, with
some alleged defaming material, it is not defamation. Intention is thus necessary here.
But if it is reasonably foreseeable that a third party will read or receive a defamatory
statement which is sent directly to the claimant, then that will constitute publication, e.g.,
when a letter meant for the plaintiff is written in a language foreign to him and will, thus,
be translated to him by a third party.20

18
[1944] AC 116
19
[1891] 1 QB 524
20
Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad, A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 445

Page 10 of 20
 4. THE STATEMENT MUST CAUSE HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF
To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff has to show that some serious injury to
his reputation has been caused as a result of the defamatory and false statements of the
defendant because of the very fact that the whole point of defamation law is to take care
of injuries to reputation. For example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbours,
friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a
terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

DEFENCES TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION

There are certain defences to the tort of defamation which are as follows:

1. JUSTIFICATION OR TRUTH
Justification or truth is an absolute defence to the tort of defamation. However, although
under criminal law, it must also be proved that the accusation was made for the public
good, under the civil law, merely proving that the statement was true is a good defence.
The defence is available even if the statement is made maliciously because the crux of the
matter lies in the ‘truth’ here. The defendant has to prove that the words claimed to be
defamatory are true about the claimant. On the other hand, claimant need not to prove that
the words used are false about him. Thus, the burden of proof for showing that a
statement is true rests on the defendant. The defendant does not need to prove every
single characteristic of the statement as true but that it must be substantially true as can be
seen in Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co21 wherein the plaintiff was sentenced to
either £1 fine or two weeks of imprisonment. The defendants, however, published a
notice mistakenly mentioning the imprisonment to be of three weeks. In an action for
defamation, the defendants were held not liable because of the high accuracy of the
statement.
While applying the test of justification, even if an alleged incident has been reported to
the police, when such incident is given an account of, it must not deviate from the facts.
Any distortion of the facts of the case without proper verification may also amount to
defamation. Such defamatory statements made in publication cannot be warded off under

21
[1865] 6 B & S 340

Page 11 of 20
 the guise of freedom of the press secured under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India, it is ruled.22
Illustration: A tells the press that B, a government official has been taking bribes from
people to do the work he is supposed to do as his duty as a public officer. If the statement
is true, A cannot be sued by B for defamation.

2. A FAIR AND BONAFIDE COMMENT

It involves making fair comments on matters of public interest. For this defence to be
available, the following essentials are required:
 It must be a comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than an assertion of fact.
 The comment must be fair, i.e., must be based on the truth and not on untrue or invented
facts.
 The matter commented upon must be of public interest.
.

(1) It must be a comment: It is related to an honest opinion of an individual based on certain

facts. Such an opinion will not be considered defamation. The key to advancing this
defence is that the statement must be presented as opinion, rather than fact, and that the
statements made are ones which are actually matters of opinion, rather than fact.

(2) The comment must be fair: The opinion must be one which the court regards as one
which a reasonable person might form based on the facts available to them, so conjecture
which ignores obvious evidence to the contrary will not be protected by this defence. The
fairness of a particular comment, thus, is contingent upon the fact that whether or not the
defendant genuinely held that particular opinion as was also illustrated in K.S. Sundram v.
S. Viswanathan.23
If due to malice on the part of the defendant, the comment is a distorted one, his comment
ceases to be fair and he cannot take such a defence. 24

(3) The matter commented upon must be of public interest: In cases where the defence of fair
comment is pleaded, it is the duty of judge to see whether the matter commented on is of

22
See Salena Dandasi v. Gajjala Malla Reddy, A.I.R. 2009 (NOC) 299 (A.P.)
23
A.I.R. 2013 (NOC) 216 (Mad.)
24
Thomad v. Bradbury, Agnew & Co. Ltd., [1906] 2 K.B. 627

Page 12 of 20
 public interest. The defendant must reasonably believe that publishing the statement was
in public interest. It covers matters in which public has legitimate concern or interest. It
includes the conduct of every public person and institution like the administration of the
government departments, public companies, courts, conduct of public fellows like
ministers or officers of State, etc. Everything that is done publically can be of public
interest whether, it be the conduct of a newspaper or a criticism made publically of
textbooks or novels, etc. The defence of public interest further requires that there should
be an observation or inference from facts, not an assertion of fact. This means that the
statement need not to be true but it must be formed on the basis of true facts.
Illustration : In a communally sensitive state of India, there has been a lot of violence
perpetrated on the people belonging to a certain minority group and the police has been
a mute spectator. This has become all the more intense and terrifying under the regime of
the Political party X. A newspaper publishes this fact. X cannot sue the newspaper if it is
true.

3. PRIVILEGE
Privilege is a special right granted to an individual by the virtue of their position or nature
of their capacity or profession. There are two kinds of privilege; absolute privilege which
is limited in scope but affords complete protection from liability, and qualified privilege
which is much wider in its ambit but can be defeated by malice. The first category
represents triumph of speech over reputation.
A. Absolute Privilege
For any individual freedom of speech and expression are paramount but for some
individuals it becomes a necessity because of the nature of their position, capacity or
profession. Absolute privilege is a complete defence that cannot be defeated by malice.
However, it is available only in the instances where statements are made during,
incidental to, and in the processing and furtherance of judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings or where statements are made in the proceeding of the parliament or
legislative assembly.

(i) Parliamentary Proceedings : Article 105(2) of our Constitution provides that: (a)
statements made by a member of either House of Parliament, and (b) the publication by or
under authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings,

Page 13 of 20
 cannot be questioned in a court of law. A similar privilege exists in respect of State
Legislatures, according to Article 194(2).
(ii) Judicial Proceedings : No action for libel or slander lies, whether against judges,
counsels, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course of any
proceedings before any court recognised by law, even though the words written or spoken
were done so maliciously, without any justification or excuse, and from personal ill will
and anger against the person defamed.25
Common issues with respect to whether this defence applies include whether the
communication is truly a part of the quasi-judicial proceeding. It is obviously not
sufficient to establish that the statements were about the proceeding. A witness talking to
a non-party or reporter about his or her evidence is not protected. The communication
must be necessary for the proceeding .If a statement is absolutely privileged, it cannot be
made the basis for a defamation claim. For instance, if a person is offering testimony as a
witness in court and gives damaging testimony about someone else such that the person
lied or cheated, those statements will be protected from civil liability for defamation. This
is because the government wants to encourage people to testify openly and honestly.
Witnesses in court are under oath to tell the truth, which lends extra credence to most
statements made as evidence in a trial. It is up to the jury to decide in Civil law whether
or not to believe the testimony, but the testimony itself is not considered defamatory no
matter how malicious it may be. The same generally is true for statements made by
lawyers and judges while in court, and for government officials' statements made while in
session.
(iii) State Communications : Communication of matter or statements made in the course of
official duty by one State officer to another is absolutely privileged because of public
policy. Such a privilege also extends to reports made in the course of military and naval
duties as well as communication made between ministers with regards to State matters.
In case of Absolute Privilege, no action lies for defamatory statement though the
statement is false or has been made with malice. In such a case, the public interest
demands that an individual’s right to reputation should give way to freedom of speech. It
is based upon the principle that interest of community at large is above interest of the
individual.

25
Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. V. Parkinson, (1892) 1 Q.B 431

Page 14 of 20
B. Qualified Privilege
For some cases, the defence of qualified privileged is also available. In the case of
qualified privileged it is necessary that the statement must made without malice. For this
defence to be available, it is further necessary that there must be an occasion for making
the statement. Generally, such a privilege is available either when the statement is made
in discharge of a duty or protection of an interest. Thus, to avail this defence, the
defendant has to prove the two points.
a. The statement was made on a privileged occasion.
b. The statement should be without malice.
In the matters of qualified privilege, the exemption from liability for making defamatory
statement is granted if the statement was made without malice. The presence of malice
destroys the defence. The malice in relation to qualified privilege means an evil motive.
The notice with which a person published defamatory matter can only be inferred from
what he did. If it be proved that he did not believe that what he publish was true, this is
generally conclusive evidence of express malice, for no sense of duty desire to protect his
own legitimate interest can justify a man in telling deliberate and injurious falsehood
about others, save in the exception case where a person may be under a duty to pass on,
without endorsing defamatory report made by some other person.

Page 15 of 20
 CASE LAWS

CASE : Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd.26

FACTS : The claimant was known as the lawfully wedded wife of a famous race-horse
owner and former General of the Mexican Army. The claimant and her husband lived
separately but he often visited her at her workplace. The defendant newspaper published a
photograph of the claimant’s husband with a woman labelled as Miss X, to whom – as
alleged by the attached article – he was engaged.
ISSUE: The claimant argued that the publication caused damage to her in that it was
intended to imply that her husband was living with her immorally. The defendants denied
any such intention and even the possibility of their publication having such a meaning.
JUDGEMENT : The Court of Appeal held that the publication in question was capable
of constituting defamation. It found that the jury was right to find that the publication
made the reasonably minded person believe that the claimant’s moral character was
questionable.

CASE : Hulton Co. v. Jones27

FACTS : In this case Hulton published a fictional article in their newspaper and in that
article, there was a character named Artemus Jones who had a bad character. After
reading the book people thought that Barrister Jones a man in existence is same as the
character of Artemus Jones in the book..
ISSUES: As Artemus Jones was a man of bad character, people thought that Barrister
Jones also had a bad character. Thus, the barrister brought an action against the
defendants for defamation.
JUDGEMENT: Notwithstanding the contention of the defendants that they never knew
the plaintiff nor did they intend to defame him, the defendants were held liable as what is
meant is not relevant but what is, is relevant.

CASE : Newstead v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. 28

FACTS: A newspaper published details of a bigamy trial and referred to the accused as
“Harold Newstead, thirty-year-old Camberwell man.” Another man by the name of

26
[1929] 2 K.B. 331
27
[1902] 4 F. 654 ( a Scottish court of Session Decision)

28
[1940] 1 KB 377

Page 16 of 20
 Harold Newstead, also from Camberwell and aged around thirty, brought an action in
libel against the newspaper. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as
referring to him.
ISSUES: The defendant newspaper admitted publication of the account but denied that
they were intended or understood to refer to the plaintiff or that they were defamatory of
him. The key question was whether reasonable persons would understand the words
complained of to refer to the plaintiff.
JUDGEMENT: The Court noted that it is established law that liability for libel does not
depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, in
this case it is right to say that a reasonable man, and, in particular, a newspaper publisher,
must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that
the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care. The fact that
the words were true of another person was not a valid defence against a claim of libel.

CASE : Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers29

FACTS: Knuppfer (K) was the head of the British branch of the Young Russia Party, the
membership of which was about 2000, out of which 24 members including the plaintiff
were in England. The respondents published a newspaper article in 1941 which alleged
association between Hitler and the Party and thus, was meant for the party as a whole.
Whilst K was not named individually in the article, some thought it to be referring to him.
ISSUES: K submitted that when a defamatory statement is made of a class of persons, an
individual suit can be raised by those members of the class capable of being defamed by
the statement. He contended that the article particularly reflected upon him as a prominent
member of the group in Britain.
JUDGEMENT: The House of Lords noted that it is an essential element of defamation
that the words complained of should be published “of the plaintiff.” Since the article
referred to such a big class, it could not be reasonably considered to be referring to the
appellant and hence, the respondents were not liable.

CASE : Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd.30

FACTS: The defendants were owners a chocolate manufacturing company. They
advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur

29
[1944] AC 116
30
[1931] A.C. 333

Page 17 of 20
 golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The
advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the
claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.
ISSUES: The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his
portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He said that by
advertisement he has suffered in his credit and reputation.
JUDGEMENT: The House of Lords held that as explained by the facts, the caricature
was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the
meaning alleged by the claimant.

CASE : Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad31

FACTS: In this case, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff in Urdu language which
was derogatory in nature. The defendant was not aware of the fact that Urdu was not
known to the plaintiff and therefore the same would be read by a third party.
ISSUE: The plaintiff filed a suit for defamation stating that his reputation was lowered in
the eyes of a third party.
JUDGEMENT: It was held that defendant was not liable unless it was proved that the at
the time of writing letter in Urdu, the defendant knew that the Urdu was not known to the
plaintiff and it would necessitate reading of the letter by a third person.

CASE : K.S. Sundram v. S. Viswanathan32

FACTS: The defendants had published articles relating only to the performance of a
company, of which, the plaintiff was President. The articles discussed the deterioration
in performance by management of the company by the plaintiff.
ISSUE: The plaintiff filed a suit for defamation seeking permanent injunction and
damages as the articles were defamatory and lowered the credibility of the company.
JUDGEMENT: The Court held that the articles could not be termed as defamatory as
they were merely fair comments on the performance of the company.

31
A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 445
32
A.I.R. 2013 (NOC) 216 (Mad.)

Page 18 of 20
 CONCLUSION

In a society, the credibility of a person determines his professional and social stature. This
credibility can either make or mar a person's professional or social life in the society. Any
injury to the reputation of a person can prove to be detrimental. Therefore, a person's
credibility holds importance in the society and cannot be undermined under any
circumstance. This right to his credibility is precisely what the tort of defamation deals
with. The concise meaning of defamation has been discussed so far as to give a fair idea
about its concept, meaning and definitions. The essentials of defamation were also briefly
explained so far as to give a foundation on which the defences of defamation could be
built upon. The defences of defamation were focussed upon and thoroughly explained
with the help of case laws and examples. Thus, the concepts and meaning of defamation
have been analysed, elucidated and understood through this project.
Presently, as it has always had, defamation walks on a fine line between the freedom of
speech and the right to reputation. And thus, aims at balancing these two interests.
Defamation law aims to strike a balance between allowing the distribution of information,
ideas, and opinions, and protecting people from having lies told about them.
The tort of defamation holds a significant place in the whole law of torts and therefore, I
would like to conclude with the fact that in Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, the
honourable Supreme Court of India has held that reputation is an inseparable part of
the right to life and that right to free speech cannot carry with it the right to defame an
individual. It went so far as to say that even the protection of reputation is a fundamental
right, thus also highlighting the importanace of tort of defamation.

. SUGGESTIONS

“The laws in place to counter the menace of defamation are both satisfactory and
reasonable but in certain areas need to be made more stringent so as to dissuade the
celebrity crazy media from wantonly publishing and broadcasting fraudulent, defamatory
matter in order to make instant money. Thus the protection of privacy and the prevention
of press harassment is also an important issue which needs to be redressed with the better
implementation of laws already existing. Since no cause of action survives the defamed
person’s death, it is clear that reputation is merely a transitory interest, which, by way of
the defences available, has to be balanced against the public interest.”

Page 19 of 20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

 Bangia, R K, Law of Torts, Defamation, 24th Edition, 2017, Page 156-157, 169

INTERNET

 https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/law-of-defamation.php

 https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html

 https://torts.uslegal.com/intentional-torts/defamation/

 https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/tort-law/defamation/lecture.php

 https://www.scribd.com/doc/86422331/The-Tort-of-Defamation

Page 20 of 20