The most important thing to a man in life is his reputation. Defamation is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the crime of intentionally and falsely damaging someone's reputation, celebrity, or character. It appears that the phrase includes both slander and libel. The current media frenzy surrounding the protection of the freedom of speech and expression as outlined in article 19 (1) (a) has made defamation a hot topic. People worry about making a statement that could cause a stir or put them in trouble, whether they are speaking in public or privately.

Defamation: Definition and Elements

According to the law, defamation is the attack on someone else's reputation by a false publication or communication to a third party that tends to discredit the subject. The only thing limiting the concept's variations is human ingenuity; it is an elusive one. Despite the fact that defamation is a product of English law, comparable ideas date back thousands of years. Chants that were abusive were punishable by death under Roman law. A tongue-cutting penalty was the punishment for insults under early English and German law. Until the Slander of Women Act of 1891, which outlawed the imputation of unchastity, slander in England was limited to the imputation of criminality, social sickness, and disparaging professional ability. This was true even in the 18th century.

Generally speaking, defamation demands that the dissemination be untrue and done without the target's permission. Pictures and words are understood in the context of their publication and in accordance with customary usage. Defamation requires a loss of reputation; hurting someone's feelings alone does not qualify. The slandered individual must be determinable but does not have to be named. A group of people is only deemed defamed if the publication mentions every member of the group, especially if there are few members in the group or if certain members are specifically mentioned.

Slander and libel are two legal subtypes of defamation. The introduction of electronic communications has added some complexity to the categorization. Radio defamation is regarded as slander in certain nations and as libel in others. Similar issues are presented by television.

In libel and slander cases, different damages are also available. Libel cases seek compensation for all negative effects of the defamation; they are referred to as special damages if they specifically involve economic loss and as general damages if reputational harm is involved. The only damages that can be recovered in a slander case are special damages; certain jurisdictions do not distinguish between the two. Various statutes make defamation illegal, but in order to be prosecuted, the defamation must directly harm the public interest.

Defamation law: Comparative analysis

The two most significant pieces of legislation in England that govern defamation are the Defamation Acts of 1952 and 1996. There is a difference between slander and libel under English law. There are two given causes. First off, libel, not slander, is illegal in many countries. In actuality, defamation is not illegal. Libel is thus always actionable in and of itself. Second, "special damage" usually has to be demonstrated in slander instances. Slander is actionable under tort law, but only in rare circumstances when extraordinary damages can be proven.

One very important distinction in present times is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication. Further, there is no distinction between libel and slander. This is because different states have different definitions. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

Until 2006, when standard defamation rules were implemented, state-by-state variations existed in Australia's defamation legislation. Following the passage of this Act, defamation laws became uniform in all states and territories. The common law's fundamental ideas were preserved in the uniform laws, although they adopted certain statutory elements from the old laws. Companies with ten or more employees are barred from suing under the standard defamation rules. Under the previous system of separate state laws, nearly anybody, any organization, or any business may file a defamation lawsuit; however, this was not the case. Individuals or groups of people who work for or are connected to that company, such as managers, CEOs, or corporate directors, may still file a lawsuit if their identities are made public.

Defamation as a Crime

This broad definition is subject to four explanations and ten exceptions.12 If a person is found guilty of having committed defamation in terms of section 499 of the IPC, the punishment is stipulated in section 500, simple imprisonment for up to two years or fine or with both. The Cr PC, which lays down the procedural aspects of the law, states that the offence is non- cognizable and bailable. Those who are accused of the offence would generally not be taken into custody without a warrant, and as such, an aggrieved person would not be able to simply file a police complaint but would, in most cases, have to file a complaint before a magistrate.

As far as the 'truth defence' is concerned, although ‘truth’ is generally considered to be a defence to defamation as a civil offence, under criminal law, only truth is a defence to defamation as a crime (assuming, of course, that it is demonstrably true) only in a limited number of circumstances. This can make persons particularly vulnerable to being held guilty of having committed defamation under the IPC even if the imputations they made were truthful.

Defamation as a Tort

One intriguing feature of defamation as a tort is that it can only be considered unlawful if the defamation damages the reputation of an individual who is still living. This essentially means that, in most circumstances, defaming a deceased person is not a tort because the plaintiff must generally be able to demonstrate that the remarks in question were directed at him. It should be noted that a deceased person's defamation does not necessarily mean that there is no cause of action; for instance, if a defamatory comment harms the reputation of the deceased person's heir, an action for defamation would be maintainable.

Defamation: Public versus Individual remedy

The petitioners' arguments focused on the fact that defamation is a disagreement between two people in which one person's reputation is maligned by the other. Therefore, the previously stated reasoning follows. The supreme court carefully considers every little detail. The court attempts to demonstrate that the writers of the Constitution did not intend for the term "defamation" to have a narrow definition by citing the constitutional assembly debates. By emphasizing that defamation has its own identity and cannot be given a narrow interpretation, the court decides against the use of the noscitur a socii concept.

Regarding the debate over whether defamation is a remedy that is available to the public or private sector, it was argued in Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, Mehmood Nayyar, and Umesh Kumar that reputation is a component of article 21. Criminal defamation cannot serve as a public remedy since defamation entails harming someone's reputation. The supreme court responds to this by stating that people are the collective and that defamation laws safeguard people's reputations in the eyes of the general public. Furthermore, it is hoped to build a connection through criminal definitions, stating that each crime is a wrong that harms someone, every public offense is likewise a private wrong, and so on.

Written By: Akanksha