Author: ROZY PARVEEN, JAMIA HAMDARD
Edited By: Ritesh Singh Shekhawat, MJRPU, Jaipur
INTRODUCTION
As the revered Bhagavad Gita correctly says, “For a man of honor, defamation is worse than death”.
This article delves into the legal aspects of defamation in India, judicial interpretations, and future direction. It examines how defamation laws and media trials influence public opinion and ensure the right to reputation and fair trials.
Every individual has the right to protect their reputation just as they do their body and property. In fact, the right to protect one’s reputation is often deemed more crucial than protecting physical and material assists[1]. People can often endure physical and property damage but harm to their reputation is intolerable. This is why defamation, which involves any act intended to harm an individual’s good name, is actionable under both tort law and criminal law.
Defamation has complex definitions and exceptions within Indian law. Understanding this law is essential for safeguarding one’s dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21[2] of the Indian constitution. However, defamation laws have often been misused, sparking debates about their impact on free speech[3]. Progressive thinking is necessary to address the evolving needs of Indian society in this regard.
KEYWORDS
Defamation, reputation, Indian constitution, free speech, media trials.
DEFINITION
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[4] “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter expected, to defame that person”.
Rohini Singh v. State of Gujarat (2018), the court has given it some thought. “Making” and “publishing” as distinct actions. If someone only types defamatory content without sharing or spreading it to others, it may not count as defamation. Therefore, to prove defamation, the person making the claim must show that the defamatory material was meant to be seen by others[5].
Section 356 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023[6] “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter expected, to defame that person”.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
It is depressing to watch Goddess Sita’s reputation being called into doubt in India, where she is regarded as a representation of elegance and purity. Despite not being officially recognized defamation has always existed in our society[7]. The introduction of defamation laws in India by Lord Macaulay in 1837 marks the beginning of the country’s legal history. Paradoxically the regulations were put in place by the British government mainly to safeguard their own interests.
Watching the reputation of Goddess Sita who is revered as a symbol of grace and innocence in India brought into question is disheartening. Defamation has always existed in our society even though it is not formally recognized. India’s legal history began in 1837 when Lord Macaulay introduced defamation laws to the country. Ironically the British government primarily implemented the laws to protect its own interests.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
Slander was only illegal in England up until the eighteenth century if it falsely accused someone of a criminal or social ill or disparaged their qualifications for a job. Accusing women of being unchaste was not made illegal until the Slander of Women Act of 1891. French laws against defamation have historically been more stringent. The truth could only be used as a defense if the publication was about a public figure[8], and a rule from 1881 that formed contemporary French defamation law demanded that libelous information in newspapers be conspicuously retracted[9]. Though comparable, German defamation laws typically permit the use of truth as a defense. In Italy, veracity rarely excuses defamation, which is a criminal offense. In the United States, defamation of a public figure can only be proven if the statement was made with “actual malice”.
Two types of defamations are:-
- Libel defamation
- Slander defamation
Libel refers to a defamatory statement made in a permanent form, such as written text, graphical representations, or record material, slander, on the other hand, involves defamatory statements made in a transitory or verbal form[10].
Libel is actionable per se, meaning that special damages do not need to be proven. In contrast, slander requires proof of the special damages to be actionable. Slander can occur in the heat of the moment or due to sudden provocation, whereas libel typically demonstrates greater malice[11].
DEFAMATION AND MEDIA LAW
Adherence to the ethical norms of journalism is crucial for published news. Journalists must ensure that the information they disseminate is truthful and guides the public in a positive direction, avoiding any negative impacts. In society, the law grants every individual the right to maintain and preserve their reputation.
In India, media ethics take on additional significance due to the country’s diverse and pluralistic society. The press has a responsibility to foster unity and understanding among different communities while reporting fairly and accurately. The Press Council of India was established to uphold the standards of journalism and provide guidelines to ensure that media practices do not harm an individual’s reputation or incite social discord. The Indian legal system also provides robust mechanisms to protect individual’s reputations. Defamation laws, both civil and criminal, are in place to offer recourse for those whose reputations have been unjustly tarnished by false reporting. This underscores the importance of responsible journalism that respects individual rights and contributes to the collective good of society.
CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
There is a close relationship between some fundamental freedoms and the constitutional component of media law in India. Article 19 of the Indian constitution implies that the media is entitled to freedom even though there are no explicit laws giving this right. The freedom of speech and expression which is essential to media freedom is guaranteed by Article 19 (1)[12]. In order for the media to have a role in a democratic society and for journalists to report critique, and enlighten the public, this fundamental right is essential.
In Sakal Papers Ltd. V. Union of India[13], The daily newspaper’s publication was contested as being against the constitution. The government argued that the regulation was a legitimate limitation on citizens’ ability to conduct business. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the state and overturned the directive. The court ruled that limitations on citizens’ ability to conduct business cannot be used to impede their rights to freedom of speech and expression. The court held that restrictions on freedom of speech could only be imposed for the reasons listed in Article 19 clause 92.
In another case K.A.Abbas v. Union of India[14], The petitioner argued that censorship was unconstitutional because it infringed upon his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. However, the Supreme Court decided that Article 19(2) justified the pre-censorship of films under the Cinematography Act. The court argues that because movies have a higher capacity to evoke strong emotions than other kinds of art or expression they should be viewed differently.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The intersection of constitutional and criminal law in the context of media freedom and regulation is a complex and nuanced subject. Through the protection of freedom of speech and expression, the Indian Constitution, and especially Article 19, implicitly supports media freedom. This freedom is not unrestricted, though, as Article 19(2) outlines reasonable limitations that attempt to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society as a whole.
The judiciary has a crucial role in drawing boundaries between certain freedoms and constraints, as demonstrated by judicial interpretations in cases like Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India and K. A. Abbas v. Union of India. The former case underscores that business regulations cannot unduly encroach upon media freedom, while the latter acknowledges the necessity of film censorship to prevent potential social harm, illustrating the delicate balance between protecting free expression and maintaining public order and morality. These legal frameworks and judicial precedents underscore the importance of ethical journalism and responsible reporting in upholding democratic values and the rule of law, ensuring that media practices contribute positively to society without compromising individual rights or social harmony
REFERENCES
Online Articles / Sources Referred
- Defamation and media law.
- Defamation law in India.
- Defamation laws in India – protecting and dignity.
- Defamation law in India.
Cases Referred
- A. Abbas v. UOI and Anr on 24 September 1970.
- Sakal papers (p) Ltd. and others v. UOI 25 September, 1962.
Statutes Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- The constitution of India, 1950.
[1] Mohd Aqib aslam, “defamation and media law” (legal service India) < Defamation And Media Law (legalserviceindia.com)> accessed on 3 august 2024.
[2] Constitution of India, 1950, article 21.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Indian penal code, 1860, section 499.
[5] Oishika Banerji, “defamation law in India” (iPleaders, 22 August 2022) < Defamation law in India – iPleaders> accessed on 3 august 2024.
[6] Bharatiya nyaya sanhita, 2023, section 356.
[7] “Defamation laws in India-protecting reputation and dignity”(times of India,18 June, 2018) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/defamation-laws-in-india-protecting-reputation-and-dignity/ > accessed on 4 august 2024.
[8] “Defamation” (Britannica, 3 July 2024) < https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-libel-and-slander > accessed on 4 august 2024.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] (1962) 3 SCR 842, AIR 1962 SC 305.
[14] 1971 AIR 481.
