By Sindhu Shree
The essence of the offence of defamation is consisted in its tendency to cause distress and damage to a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavorable sentiments of his fellows, and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such unfavorable sentiments is exposed. The gist of the offence is the mental suffering caused to the person defamed.
Under the IPC, there is no distinction between slander and libel. The subject is dealt with in the IPC under Section 499, which requires the following three essentials:
- Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.
- Such imputation must have been made by words, either spoken or intended to be read; or signs; or visible representations.
- Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.
Every one who composes, dictates, writes or in any way contributes to the making of a libel is considered the maker of the libel. Murdering a person’s reputation by a libel may be compared to murdering a man’s person, in which all who are present and encourage the act are guilty, though the wound was given by one only.
The recent example of this is a criminal case registered against Bal Thackeray, Shiv Sena Chief and editor of party mouthpiece Saamna, and two others which was admitted by a court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint was filed by Samajwadi Party’s city unit president Abu Asim Azmi, alleging that the impugned portion titled ‘Ha Azmi Kon’ (Who is this Azmi?) in the editorial column of Saamna, was not just highly defamatory but scandalous and contemptuous as well.
Intention on the part of the accused or knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned is an essential ingredient of the offence of defamation.
The defamatory matter must be published, i.e. communicated to some person other than the person about whom it is addressed. Communicating defamatory matter only to the person defamed is not publication. Where a libel is printed, the sale of each copy is a distinct publication and a fresh offence; and conviction or acquittal on an indictment for publishing one copy will be no bar to an indictment for publishing another copy.
The person who publishes and the person who makes an imputation are alike guilty. The publisher of a libel is strictly responsible, irrespective of the fact whether he is the originator of the libel or is merely repeating it.
The publisher of a newspaper is responsible for defamatory matter published in such paper, whether he knows the contents of such paper or not, but not when the libel was published in his absence and without his knowledge, and he had in good faith entrusted the temporary management of the newspaper during his absence to a competent person.
Where a newspaper containing a defamatory article is printed and published at one place and is circulated or sold at other places, by or on behalf of the accused responsible for printing and publishing the newspaper, then there may be a complaint for defamation.
The words must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. A newspaper is not a person and therefore it is not an offence to defame a newspaper. Defamation of a newspaper may, in certain cases, involve defamation of those responsible for its publication.
Where the statement does not refer to the complainant directly, he must bring forward additional facts showing how the words are related to him in a manner which is defamatory.
An essential difference between the Indian and the English law is that the former recognizes ‘words spoken’ as a mode of defamation. Under English law, no indictment will lie for words spoken and not reduced into writing unless they are seditious, blasphemous, grossly immoral or obscene.
The words “visible representation” will include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. It is not necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the scandalous imputation alleged; it is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm, or knew, or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant.
A man’s opinion of himself cannot be called his reputation. A prosecution may be maintained for defamation of a deceased person but no suit for damages will lie in such a case.
The section dealing with punishment for the offence of defamation is Section 500 of IPC which says that whoever defames shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine or both.
Defamation is an offence no less serious than a murder; murdering a man’s reputation is as heinous as killing a man himself.