You searched for :

defamation (8736)

ALL RESULTS

8736

 Digest Notes1178

o Supreme Court228

o Privy Council18

o High Courts591

o Foreign Cases341

 Judgments7089
 Acts, Statutes, Ordinances25

 Bills In Parliament9

 Rules, Regulations, Orders, Schemes11

 Notifications, Circulars, Instructions12

 Articles331

 Book Indexes19

 Tagore Law Lectures12

 Reports of Commissions & Committees35

 Constitutional Documents9

 Historical Trials2

 Treaties4
Year Case Count
1779 0
1780 0
1782 0
1785 0
1786 0
1788 0
1789 0
1790 0
1791 0
1792 0
1793 0
1794 0
1795 0
1797 0
1798 0
Year Case Count
1800 0
1801 0
1805 0
1807 0
1811 0
1812 0
1813 0
1814 0
1815 0
1816 0
1817 0
1818 0
1819 0
1820 0
1821 0
1822 0
1823 0
1824 0
1825 0
1826 0
1827 0
1828 0
1829 0
1830 0
1831 0
1832 0
1833 0
1834 0
1835 0
1836 0
1837 0
1838 0
1839 0
1840 0
1841 0
1842 0
1843 0
1844 0
1845 0
1846 0
1847 0
1848 0
1849 0
1850 0
Year Case Count
1851 0
1852 0
1853 0
1854 0
1855 0
1856 0
1857 0
1858 0
1859 0
1860 4
1861 1
1862 0
1863 0
1864 0
1865 0
1866 2
1867 4
1868 2
1869 4
1870 4
1871 2
1872 5
1873 1
1874 7
1875 2
1876 5
1877 4
1878 8
1879 2
1880 8
1881 9
1882 5
1883 13
1884 6
1885 4
1886 4
1887 9
1888 12
1889 1
1890 8
1891 4
1892 13
1893 3
1894 9
Year Case Count
1895 12
1896 3
1897 6
1898 1
1899 37
1900 12
1901 8
1902 10
1903 8
1904 10
1905 12
1906 14
1907 8
1908 18
1909 21
1910 9
1911 13
1912 15
1913 19
1914 32
1915 15
1916 17
1917 21
1918 25
1919 15
1920 25
1921 12
1922 24
1923 15
1924 26
1925 35
1926 39
1927 19
1928 30
1929 37
1930 24
1931 24
1932 26
1933 17
1934 33
1935 38
1936 23
1937 27
1938 30
Year Case Count
1939 39
1940 40
1941 24
1942 32
1943 32
1944 11
1945 33
1946 10
1947 13
1948 30
1949 29
1950 38
1951 32
1952 29
1953 43
1954 34
1955 23
1956 31
1957 33
1958 36
1959 31
1960 44
1961 36
1962 45
1963 33
1964 43
1965 45
1966 37
1967 54
1968 42
1969 24
1970 32
1971 40
1972 48
1973 35
1974 41
1975 35
1976 19
1977 34
1978 44
1979 33
1980 51
1981 53
1982 43
Year Case Count
1983 44
1984 79
1985 68
1986 56
1987 59
1988 98
1989 62
1990 77
1991 56
1992 42
1993 65
1994 76
1995 106
1996 89
1997 92
1998 85
1999 112
2000 122
2001 149
2002 149
2003 140
2004 132
2005 132
2006 215
2007 167
2008 189
2009 239
2010 306
2011 244
2012 301
2013 292
2014 327
2015 381
2016 415
2017 336
2018 291
2019 68
Filter years: 1779 to 2019

Result List

Sort by
 
1. Supreme Court D2 13-05-2016
Criminal Law : Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 199, 154, 156(3) and 200
to 204 - Defamation - Issue of process - No FIR can be...,
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221

2. Supreme Court D2 24-03-2015
Information Technology, Internet, Computer and Cyber Laws : Information
Technology Act, 2000 - S. 66-A - Defamation - S. 66-A, IT ...,
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1


3. Supreme Court D2 13-05-2016
Constitution of India : Article 19 : Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2) -- Freedom of speech
and expression : Art. 19(2) -- Nature and Scope : D...,
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221

4. Supreme Court D2 13-05-2016
Constitution of India : Article 19 : Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2) -- Freedom of speech
and expression : Art. 19(2) -- Nature and Scope : D...,
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221

5. Articles A
2010 PL November 30 Defamation on Social Networking Websites by ...
opportunity they provide for "cyber-defamation" or "virtual defamation" to
mushroom...,
Defamation on Social Networking Websites, 2010 PL November 30

6. Articles A 01-07-2011

PRESS AND THE LAW OF DEFAMATION by Dr ... Commission

recommended protection of unintentional defamation...,
Freedom of the Press and the Law of Defa ..., [2011] 1.1 NULJ 167

7. Supreme Court D2 20-07-2010
Criminal Law : Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 499 to 502, 34 and 120-B - Defamation
- Abuse of provisions - Quashment of complaint, direct...,
Rajesh Rangarajan v. Crop Care Federatio ..., (2010) 15 SCC 163

8. Articles A
2014) 26 SAcLJ 98 UK DEFAMATION ACT 2013 Key Changes The much
awaited new legislation affecting English defamation law received Royal Assent
in...,
UK Defamation Act 2013, (2014) 26 SAcLJ 98

9. Supreme Court D2 13-05-2016
Constitutional Interpretation : Aids to construction : External aids : Historical
background, Constituent Assembly Debates, etc. -...,
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221

10. Articles A
Any attempt to merge defamation and negligence is to be ... The torts
of defamation and negligence are distinct...,
Impact of Defamation on Negligent Missta ..., (1996) 8 SAcLJ 68


 

D2
Constitution of India
Article 19
Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2) -- Freedom of speech and expression
Art. 19(2) -- Nature and Scope
Defamation
— Art. 19(2) — Criminal defamation — Word “defamation” in Art. 19(2) cannot be construed in
association with succeeding expression “incite to cause an offence” by applying rule of noscitur
a sociis — That word in Art. 19(2) should not be narrowly construed — Defamation has its own
independent identity and law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the time when
the Constitution came into force — Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 - S. 499 — Constitutional
Interpretation — Subsidiary rules of interpretation — Noscitur a sociis — Words and Phrases -
“Defamation”, “incitement” and “incite to cause an offence” — Interpretation of Statutes — Subsidiary
Rules — Noscitur a sociis

The submission that the word “defamation” may not even call for a civil action in the absence of a
codified law has no substance. The Common Law of England was the prevalent law before the
Constitution came into force and it is declared as a law in force under Article 372 of the Constitution of
India. In the Hamlyn Lecture “The Common Law in India” India's first Attorney General expressed that
an important branch of law which has remained uncodified in India is the law relating to civil wrongs.
Some of the most important rights of a person which the law protects from injury are rights to the
security of his person, his domestic relations and his property and reputation. A civil action for which
there is no codified law in India, a Common Law right can be taken recourse to under Section 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless there is specific statutory bar in that regard. (Paras 66 to 68)

Defamation as an offence is admittedly a pre-constitutional law which was in existence when the
Constitution came into force. To interpret the word “defamation” occurring in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution such that it would not include “criminal defamation” or that the words/act concerned
should have a tendency to cause public disorder or amount to incitement of an offence to be actionable
as a crime, would not be in consonance with the principle of interpretation pertaining to the
Constitution. (Para 150)

While construing the provision of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to keep
in view the exalted spirit, essential aspects, the value and philosophy of the Constitution. There is no
doubt that the principle of noscitur a sociis can be taken recourse to in order to understand and interpret
the Constitution but while applying the principle, one has to keep in mind the contours and scope of
applicability of the said principle. This rule, according to Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes means that
when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are
understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from each other, that is,
the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. Noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of
construction and cannot prevail where it is clear that wider and diverse etymology is intentionally and
deliberately used in the provision. It is only when and where the intention of the legislature in associating
wider words with words of narrowest significance is doubtful or otherwise not clear, that the rule
of noscitur a sociis is useful. (Paras 70 to 74)

The term “defamation” as used is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The meaning is beyond doubt.
The said term was there at the time of commencement of the Constitution. If the word “defamation” is
associated or is interpreted to take colour from the terms “incitement to an offence”, it would
unnecessarily make it a restricted one which even the Founding Fathers did not intend to do. The
debates of the Constituent Assembly can be taken aid of for the purpose of understanding the intention
of the Framers of the Constitution. Keeping in view the aid that one may take from the Constituent
Assembly Debates and regard being had to the clarity of the expression “defamation”, there is no
warrant to apply the principle of noscitur a sociis to give a restricted meaning to the term “defamation”
that it only includes a criminal action if it gives rise to incitement to constitute an offence. The word
“incitement” has to be understood in the context of freedom of speech and expression and reasonable
restriction. The word “incitement” in criminal jurisprudence has a different meaning. It is difficult to
accede to the submission that defamation can only get criminality if the words/act concerned incite to
cause an offence. The word “defamation” has its own independent identity and it stands alone and the
law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the time when the Constitution came
into force. (Paras 63 and 75)

Thus, the term “defamation” as used in Article 19(2) of the Constitution should not be narrowly
construed. The conferment of a narrow meaning on the word would defeat the very purpose that the
Founding Fathers intended to convey, and further there is no justifiable reason to constrict the
application. The word “defamation” as used in Article 19(2) has to be conferred an independent
meaning, for it is incomprehensible to reason that it should be read with the other words and
expressions in Article 19(2), namely, “security of the State”, “friendly relations with foreign States”,
“public order, decency or morality” or “incitement to an offence”. (Para 80)

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India ,

(2016) 7 SCC 221 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 550 : 2016 Cri LJ 3214 : AIR 2016 SC 2728

Bench Strength 2. Coram : Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

[Date of decision : 13/05/2016]

Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corpn. of Calcutta, (1967) 2 SCR 170 : AIR 1967 SC 997 :
1967 Cri LJ 950; Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393, followed
M.C Setalvad's Hamlyn Lectures (Twelfth Series) “The Common Law of India”; G.P Singh: Principles of
Statutory Interpretation; Maxwell: Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edn., 1962) 321, relied on
S.R Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126; Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, In re (Gujarat
Assembly Election matter), (2002) 8 SCC 237; Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1; State
of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610 : (1960) 2 SCR 866; Bank of India v. Vijay
Transport, 1988 Supp SCC 47; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P, (2005) 2 SCC 515;
Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Assn. v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 SCC 755 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
306, relied on
R.L Arora (2) v. State of U.P, (1964) 6 SCR 784 : AIR 1964 SC 1230; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, considered
State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329 : 1952 Cri LJ 1373; Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi,
AIR 1950 SC 129 : 1950 SCR 605 : (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1525, referred to

1950-2019, © EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.