Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
DEFAMATION UNDER THE LAW OF TORTS
Reputation is not a luxury. It is a social necessity. A person can lose money and earn it back, but once reputation is damaged, repairing it is extremely difficult. Law recognises this reality. That is why defamation exists as both a civil wrong (tort) and a criminal offence in India. Civil defamation focuses on compensation for injury to reputation, while criminal defamation focuses on punishment. This article deals primarily with defamation as a tort.
MEANING AND NATURE OF DEFAMATION
DEFAMATION UNDER THE LAW OF TORTS
Defamation, in law, means the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or causes him to be shunned, avoided, ridiculed, or hated. The essence of defamation lies not in the intention of the speaker but in the effect of the statement on reputation.
This principle was clearly stated in Sim v. Stretch, where the court held that the test is whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Thus, the law does not protect hypersensitive reactions, but it also does not excuse statements that reasonably damage reputation.
DEFAMATION UNDER THE LAW OF TORTS
LIBEL AND SLANDER
Defamation is divided into two types:
1. Libel
Defamation in permanent form
Examples: Newspapers ,Books ,Online posts ,Videos ,Films ,Recorded speech ,Cartoons, caricatures
2. Slander
Defamation in temporary form
Examples: Spoken words,Oral allegations ,Gestures
DEFAMATION UNDER THE LAW OF TORTS
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION
1.THE STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY
A statement is defamatory if it injures reputation, not merely feelings. Mere vulgar abuse or insults spoken in anger are generally not actionable. However, if the words impute immorality, dishonesty, unchastity, or criminality, they cross the line into defamation.
In Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai, calling a widow a “keep” was held to be defamatory because it amounted to an imputation on her chastity, not mere abuse
2.THE STATEMENT MUST REFER TO THE PLAINTIF
It is not necessary that the plaintiff be named. It is sufficient if reasonable persons who know the plaintiff would understand that the statement refers to him.
This principle was clearly articulated in Hulton & Co. v. Jones, where identification by description rather than name was held sufficient. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that the real question is whether the plaintiff was reasonably identifiable.
3.THE STATEMENT MUST BE PUBLISHED
Publication means communication of the defamatory matter to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Without publication, there is no defamation.
In Pullman v. Hill, a defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff was held to be published because it was likely to be read by a clerk. Similarly, in B.M. Thimmaiah v. T.M. Rukmini, defamatory allegations made in a written statement filed in court were held to amount to publication, as they came to the knowledge of the parties to the proceeding.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
Ordinarily, communication between husband and wife is not publication because the law treats them as one person. However, if the communication is likely to be read by third persons, or actually reaches them, publication exists.
In T.J. Ponnen v. M.C. Verghese, the Supreme Court held that although marital communications are privileged under the Evidence Act, defamation can still be established if the letters are proved through other lawful means.
CONCLUSION
Defamation law is neither gentle nor forgiving. It places a heavy burden on those who speak, write, or publish. Intention often does not matter; ignorance is rarely a shield. At the same time, courts have tried to soften its harsh edges by recognising innocent publication, apologies, and reasonable care
Reference