Defamation

Defamation is defined
as…?
 The tort of defamation is aimed at protecting the character
of individuals against attempts to discredit their standing in
the eyes of the community. A statement or other published
material is therefore regarded as defamatory if it lowers the
reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of others in the
community.

 In the case of Dixon v. Holden , Defamation is injury to

the reputation of a person. If a person injuries the
reputation of another , he does so at his own risk, as in the
case of an interference with the property. A man’s
reputation is his property and if possible more valuable
than property

 Defamation must be towards specific person only

Defamation is

(a)Civil Wrong

(b)Criminal Wrong

(c)Both a and b
One of my law students writes to his friend at another
university ‘Law lecturers are incompetent idiots’. Why can I
not bring an action for defamation against him?

 a) because it is true so the defence of justification applies

 b) because it is in the public interest and so the defence of

fair comment applies

 c) because it refers to a class that is too wide for me to be

recognised

 d) because it does not refer to me specifically by name

 DEFAMATION

(1) “Every man has right to have his reputation preserved inviolate”-
….Blackstones
(2) Blackstones -This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent
personal right of every person as part of the right of personal security.

(3) Winfield- “Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends

to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking member of the
society generally.”

(4) Salmond- “Defamation is the publication of a false and defamatory

statement concerning another person without lawful justification”

(5) Bhagwat Gita-” For a man of honour, defamation is worse than

death.”
 ENGLISH LAW
 Mainly because of historical reasons , English law divides the action
for defamation into

(a) Libel
(b) Slander
 Slander is a publication of defamatory statement in a transient
form. Example of it may be spoken by words or by gestures
 Libel is a representation made in some
permanent form e.g. writing , printing , picture or
statues .
Slander is

(a)Defamation in written form

(b)Defamation in oral form

Defamatory Statement in the transitory form is known as

(a)Libel

(b)Slander
A, writes an article in newspaper about Miss Rosy’s Dance
School. Toward the end of the article he suggested people
not to send their daughters to her dance school as she is
not the lady of good character. Will this amounts to
defamation

(a)Yes it amounts to slander

(b)No, not at all

(c)Yes, it amounts to libel

(d)Yes it is defamation
 In the case of (1934), named as Youssoupoff v M.G.M
Pictures Ltd., it was held that in a cinema film not only
the photographic part of it is considered to be libel but
also the speech which synchronizes with it is also libel.

 Section 1, Defamation Act, 1952 provides that

broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy
shall be treated as publication in permanent form.

The matter recorded on a gramophone disc is

addressed to the ear and not to the eyes, but is at the
same time in a permanent form. According to Winfield , it
is slander but according to some others, it is a libel.
In order for a statement to be defamatory, it must

 a. lower a person in the estimation of the community.

 b. be the product of a diseased mind.
 c. be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
 d. expose another person to physical harm
Under English law, the distinction between libel
and slander is material for two reasons

(1)Under Criminal law, only libel has been

recognized as an offence. Slander is no offence.

(2) Under the law of torts , slander is actionable

save in exceptional cases, only on proof of
special damage. Libel is always per se i.e.,
without the proof of any damages
In the following four exceptional cases, slander is
also actionable per se:

 Imputation of criminal offence to the plaintiff

 Imputation of infectious disease to the plaintiff, which

has the effect of preventing other from associating with
the plaintiff.

 Imputation that a person is incompetent , dishonest or

unfit in regard to the office, profession , calling, trade or
business carried on by him
 Imputation of unchasity or adultery to any woman or girl
is also actionable per se. This exception was created by
the Slander of women Act, 1891
Under English law only …………….. Is considered as
criminal offence

(a)Slander

(b)Libel

(c)Both A and B

(d)Neither A nor B
 INDIAN LAW
 It has been noted above that under English criminal law, a
distinction is made between libel and slander. There, libel is
a crime but slander is not. Slander is only a civil wrong in
England .

 Criminal law in India does not make any such distinction

between libel and slander. Both libel and slander are
criminal offences under section 499 of IPC

 In India libel and slander both are actionable per se,

according to the rule established by various judgments
Is there any difference between libel and slander under
India Law

Yes

No
Defamation is considered as crime in which of the
following sections of IPC

(a)Defined in 300 and punished in 302

(b)Defined in 324 and punished in 326

(c) Defined and punished under 378

(d) Defined under 499 and punished under 500

D.P Choudhary v Manjulata, AIR 1997 RAJ 170

 Manjulata about 17 years of age , belonged to a

distinguished educated family of jodhpur . She was a
student of B.A

 There was a publication of news item in a local daily,

Dainaik Navjyoti , dated 18.12.77 that last night at 11 P.m ,
Manjulata had run away with a boy named Kamlesh , after
she went of her house on the pretext of attending night
classes in her college.
The news item was untrue and was published negligently
with utter irresponsibility .

 She was shocked and ridiculed by persons who knew her

and her marriage prospects were adversely affected thereby.

 IT was held that all defamatory words are actionable per se

and in such a case , general damages will be presumed . She
was held entitled to an award of Rs 10,000 by way of general
damages
 ESSENTAIL OF DEFAMATION

(1) The Statement must be defamatory

(2) The said statement must refer to the plaintiff

(3) The statement must be published

(1) The Statement must be defamatory
 Statement which tends to injure the reputation of plaintiff.

 Imputation which expose one to disgrace and humiliation.

 Such statement may be-

• Oral
• In writing
• Printed
• Picture
• By some conduct
Cases-DP Choudhary v. Manjulata AIR
1997 Raj-
Running away in the name of night classes-published in
Dainik Novjyoti of Jodhpur-Held defamation and Rs. One
lakh awarded as damages.

Ramdhara v Phulwatibai (1890),

It has been held that the imputation by the defendant that

the plaintiff, a widow of 45 years of age is a keep of the
maternal uncle of the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law, is not a
mere vulgar abuse but a definite imputation on her chastity
South Indian Railways co v Ramakrishan , I.L.R
(1890) 13 Mad 34

The railway guard who was an employee of the defendant,

South Indian Railways Co, went to a carriage for checking the
tickets and while calling upon the plaintiff to produce his
ticket said to him in the presence of the others passengers. “I
suspect you are travelling with a wrong (or false ) ticket. The
plaintiff produced the ticket which was in order. He then
sued the railway company contending that those words
uttered by the railway guard amounted to defamation. It was
held words spoken by the guard were spoken bona-fide and
under the circumstances of the case , there was no
defamation and the railway company could not be made
liable for the same
Defamation involves:

a.  using a weapon.

b.  at least 5 people to be present.

c.  a contract.

d.  making false statements about someone

Why is defamation a tort?

a.  Individuals have the right to be free from bodily

harm.

b.  Individuals have the right to conduct business

without interference.

c.  Individuals have the right to own property.

d.  Individuals have the right to enjoy a good reputation.

A written statement that damages someone’s reputation
is not considered libel if it is never communicated to
another person than the person who wrote the
statement.  In other words, the person who wrote the
statement never showed it to anyone.

Yes

no
 The Innuendo
 A Statement may be Prima facie defamatory and that is no
where its natural and obvious meaning leads to that
conclusion . Sometimes , the statement may prima facie
be innocent but because of some latent or secondary
meaning, it may be considered to be defamatory.

 When the natural and ordinary meaning is not defamatory

but the plaintiff wants to bring an action for defamation, he
must prove the latent or the secondary meaning i.e., the
innuendo, which makes the statement defamatory
It means an indirect intimation about a person or thing,
especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

 The English word INNUENDO comes from the Latin

verb innuere meaning “to nod, give a hint, 

 Sometimes the statement may prima facie be innocent

but because of some latent or secondary meaning it may
be considered to be defamatory.
 In natural and ordinary meaning it is not defamatory.

 Plaintiff must prove if he wants to bring an action

____________ are words, which
appear innocent, but have a latent
defamatory meaning
(a) Libel               
(b) Slander
(c) Innuendo       
(d) None of the above
TOLLEY V J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931)
Facts
The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing
company. They advertised their products with a caricature of
the claimant, who was a prominent amateur 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.
Issue
The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed
to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial
gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like
someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and
was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to
the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no
longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from
his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible
adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were
brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the
caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in
favour of the claimant. The defendants appealed
Held
The House of Lords held that in the circumstances
of this case – 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. The Lords also
ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of
damages
INTENTION TO DEFAME IS NOT NECESSARY
 WHEN THE WORDS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFAMATORYBY
THE PERSON TO WHOM THE STATEMENT IS PUBLISHED , THERE IS
DEFAMATION, EVEN THOUGH PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT
BELIEVED IT TO BE INNOCENT
CASSIDY V DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPERS LTD
(1929)

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. The defendants refused to admit, even after
seeing evidence thereof, that the claimant was married to the
subject of the publication. The trial judge found that in the
circumstances of this case, the publication could be seen as
having a defamatory meaning. He directed the jury that what
mattered was the perception of the reasonably minded
person who knew the circumstances of the case. The jury
found in favour of the claimant
Held
The Court of Appeal held, affirming the lower
court’s decision, 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.
 All of the following are intentional torts
except
a. trespass.
b. fraud.
c. defamation.
d. malpractice
Remedies available in the case of defamation

A) A Criminal prosecution Section 500 of IPC

and

B) A civil suit for damages

C) Injunction-s-38 and 39 of the specific relief

Act 1963

D) All of the above

Morrison v Ritihie & Co 1902

The defendant In good faith published a

mistaken statement that the plaintiff had
given birth to twins . The plaintiff had
been married only two months back. Even
though the defendants were ignorant of
the fact , they were held liable
 2 The statement must refer to the
plaintiff
 In an action for the defamation , the plaintiff has to prove
that the statement of which he complains referred to him.

 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.
HULTON CO V JONES, (1910) A.C 2O

E. Hulton & Co. (Hulton) (defendant) operated a newspaper in England.

Thomas Artemus Jones (Jones) (plaintiff) allegedly contributed signed
articles to the paper. One day, Hulton ran an article by its Paris
correspondent that mentioned a person named “Artemus Jones” and
accused that person of cheating on his wife with another woman. Jones
brought suit for defamation against Hulton. At trial, Hulton stated it had
never heard of Jones and had used the name “Artemus Jones” as a
fictitious name. Jones accepted this contention as true. However, he
argued Hulton was still liable for defamation because it issued a
statement that could be interpreted as true and harmful to Jones. In
fact, Jones produced several witnesses who said they believed the
article was referring to him. The jury granted Jones damages. The court
of appeal affirmed, and on appeal, the House of Lords affirmed.
NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS
NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939)
Facts:
A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold
Newstead. However, another person with this name brought
an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been
misunderstood as leading to him.
The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the
article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being
defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that
the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear
and complete description of the correct person. Moreover,
the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of
the duty.
Issues:
The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper , was if
the reasonable persons would have understood the words
complained of to refer to the plaintiff.

Held:
The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the
current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the
intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation.
Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case 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. 
Defamation of a class of people
 when a word refers to the group of individuals or a class
of person , no member of that group or a class can sue
unless he can prove that the words could reasonably be
considered to be referring to him.

 As it was held in the case of Eastwood v Homes (1858),

that if a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves , no
particular lawyer could sue him unless there was something
to point to the particular individual.

 So when someone makes a general statement to towards

particular class of people, that would not amount to an
defamation
KNUPFFER V LONDON EXPRESS
NEWSPAPERS LTD (1944) 1 ALL E.R 495
Facts
Knupffer (K) was the head of the British branch
of the Young Russia Party. The respondents
published a newspaper article in 1941 which
alleged association between Hitler and the
Party. Whilst K was not named individually in
the article, witnesses at trial intimated that they
understood the article as referring to K. K was
successful in his libel claim at trial.
Issue

The Court of Appeal held that the words could not be

regarded as referring to K and allowed the newspaper’s
appeal. K appealed to the House of Lords. On appeal, 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. K submitted that the article particularly reflected
upon him as a prominent member of the group in Britain.
Held

The House of Lords noted that it is an essential element of

defamation that the words complained of should be
published “of the plaintiff.” Viscount Simon held that the
article, having regard to its language, could not be regarded,
as a question of law, as being capable of referring to K. The
trial judge had erroneously relied upon a question of fact i.e.
the fact that K was capable of being identified by reasonable
people who knew him as a subject of the article. Similarly,
Lord Atkin held that in libel cases the key question was
whether the words were published “of the plaintiff” as an
individual rather that whether they were spoken of a class.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
DHIRENDRA NATH SEN V RAJAT KANTI
BHADRA A.I.R 1970 Cal, 216
It has been held that when an editorial in a
newspaper is defamatory of a spiritual head of
community, an individual of that community does
not have a right of action
 Where the statement though generally referring to a class
can be reasonably considered to be referring to a particular
plaintiff, his action will succeed.

 In Fanus v Malcolmoson (1848)- ,

In an article published by defendants , it was mentioned that
cruelty was practiced upon employees in some of the Irish
factories. From the article as a whole including a reference to
Waterford itself, it was considered that the plaintiff ‘s
Waterford factory was aimed at in this article and the plaintiff
was, therefore successful in his action for defamation.
Defamation of the deceased
 Defaming a deceased person is no tort. Under
criminal law, however, it may amount to defamation
to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that
person, if living and is intended to be harmful to the
feeling of his family or other relatives.
 (3) The statement must be published
 Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some
person other than the person defamed, and unless that is done , no
civil action for defamation lies.

 Communication to plaintiff himself is not enough because

defamation is a injury to the reputation and reputation consists in
the estimation in which others hold him and not a man’s own opinion
of himself.
 eg- Dictating a letter to one's typest is enough publication.

 Sending a defamatory letter to a plaintiff in a language not known to

him may amount to defamation, if he gives that letter to someone
versed with the language to read for him.
Mahendra Ram v Harnandan Prasad A.I.R
1958 Pat. 445
, the defendant sent a defamatory letter written in
Urdu to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not know Urdu
and therefore the same was read over to him by a
third person, it was held that defendant was not
liable unless it was proved that at the time of writing
a letter in Urdu script, the defendant knew that the
Urdu was not known to the plaintiff and it would
necessitate the reading of letter by other person.
In Arumuga Mudaliar v Annamalai
Mudaliar (1966)
It was held by the Madras High Court that when two
persons jointly wrote a letter containing defamatory
letter concerning the plaintiff and sent the same by
registered post to the plaintiff, there was no
publication by one fortfeasor to the other as there
could me no publication between joint tortfeasors nor
can there be said to be publication when the
registered letter addressed to the plaintiff gets into
the hands of a third persons and he reads it out in the
presence of various other persons, if the same could
 Communication between husband and wife- in the eyes of law
husband and wife are one person and the communication of a
defamatory matter from the husband to the wife or a vice-versa is no
publication

 Repetition of Defamatory matter- The liability of a person who

repeats a defamatory matter arises in the same way as that of the
originator , because every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise
to a fresh cause of action. Not only the author of the defamatory
matter is liable but its editor , printer or publisher would also be liable
in the same way.
Which of the following is an inaccurate
statement?

 a) a libel is a defamation made in a permanent

form

 b) a slander is a defamation made in a

temporary form

 c) a slander may be made orally

 d) a libel must be made in writing

Slander is actionable per se in India

Yes

no
One of my law students writes to his friend at another
university ‘Law lecturers are incompetent idiots’. Why can I
not bring an action for defamation against him?

 a) because it is true so the defence of justification applies

 b) because it is in the public interest and so the defence of

fair comment applies

 c) because it refers to a class that is too wide for me to be

recognised

 d) because it does not refer to me specifically by name

The main difference between libel and slander is that

a. libel concerns adults only; slander, minors only.

b. libel concerns minors only; slander, adults only.

c. libel concerns those things spoken; slander, those

things in print.

d. libel concerns those things in print; slander, those

things spoken