Defamation — Libel, Slander & Defences — Law of Torts Notes

Defamation — Libel and Slander

A man wrote a letter full of grossly abusive words to a respectable woman, sealed it properly in an envelope, and posted it to her alone. Every word was insulting. It was not defamation. Reputation is what other people think of you — so a statement nobody else ever sees cannot damage it.

The three essentials

Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.

Three essentials, and every problem in this topic turns on one of them:

A. The statement must be defamatory.

The test is objective: would right-thinking members of society generally think less of the plaintiff? Mere abuse or insult that damages no one’s opinion of him is not defamation.

Innuendo matters here. Words innocent on their face may be defamatory to those who know surrounding facts. To say that “Mrs X has given birth to twins” is innocent — unless the hearers know she was married only two months ago. The plaintiff must plead and prove the innuendo.

B. The statement must refer to the plaintiff.

It is not necessary that he be named. It is enough that reasonable people who know him would understand the statement to refer to him. The defendant’s intention is irrelevant: in Hulton v Jones (1910), a fictional character’s name matched a real person’s, and the newspaper was still liable. In Cassidy v Daily Mirror (1929), an innocent photograph caption implied that the plaintiff was not lawfully married, and the paper was liable although it knew nothing of the true facts.

C. The statement must be published.

Publication means communication to at least one person other than the plaintiff himself. This single element decides more past exam problems than any other in the unit.

  1. A letter sent only to the plaintiff is not published, however abusive — hence the sealed-letter problem.
  2. But a letter which the defendant knows will be read by a third person is published — as where a defamatory letter is written in a language the plaintiff does not understand, so that it must be read out to him by someone else (Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad, 1958).
  3. A letter to a person’s spouse is publication; a communication between spouses is not.
  4. Dictation to a typist, or a postcard which anyone may read, is publication.

D. Libel and slander.

  1. Libel is defamation in a permanent form — writing, print, a picture, a film, an effigy, a radio broadcast.
  2. Slander is defamation in a transient form — chiefly spoken words and gestures.

In English law the distinction matters: libel is actionable per se, while slander requires proof of special damage, except in four cases — imputation of a criminal offence, of a contagious disease, of unchastity to a woman, or of unfitness in one’s trade or profession. English law also treats libel as a crime; slander is only a civil wrong.

In India the position is different, and it is genuinely unsettled — which is exactly what the question is testing.

  1. The preponderant view is that both libel and slander are actionable per se. The leading authorities are Hirabai Jehangir v Dinshaw Edulji (Bombay, 1927) and Girja Prasad Sharma v Umashankar Pathak (Madhya Pradesh, 1972).

  2. The contrary Madras view, in Parvathi v Mannar (1884), followed English law and required proof of special damage for slander.

  3. In criminal law there is no distinction at all: s.499 of the Indian Penal Code (now s.356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) covers words spoken and words intended to be read alike.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — D.P. Choudhary v Manjulata is a LIBEL case

It is very commonly cited in guides as authority that “slander is actionable per se in India”. It is not authority for that at all. The defamatory matter there was a newspaper publication, which is libel — and libel is actionable per se everywhere, in England as much as in India. Cite it for innuendo and damages in a defamation of a young woman’s character; cite Hirabai Jehangir and Girja Prasad Sharma for the slander proposition.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the letter in a language the plaintiff cannot read

Facts. The defendant sends the plaintiff a defamatory letter written in Urdu. The defendant knows the plaintiff does not read Urdu. The plaintiff has it read out to him by a third person.

Rule. Publication means communication to a person other than the plaintiff. A communication to the plaintiff alone is not publication — unless the defendant knew it would in the ordinary course reach a third party.

Apply. Sending a letter in a language the recipient cannot read makes it a near certainty that someone else will read it to him. The defendant is taken to have contemplated that, so the letter was published.

Decoy. The fact that the letter was addressed to the plaintiff alone, which normally defeats the claim.

Variant. Contrast the sealed, properly-fastened abusive letter posted to a woman who could read it herself — no third party was contemplated, so there was no publication and no defamation.

Conclusion. The defendant is liable.

Section 499, Indian Penal Code (now s.356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023): “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said… to defame that person.”

In Simple Terms: the criminal provision covers spoken and written words alike, and its focus is the same as the tort’s — an imputation, published, that damages what others think of the person.

flowchart TD
    D["Alleged defamation"]
    D --> E1{"Is the statement DEFAMATORY in the eyes of right-thinking people?"}
    E1 -->|"No — mere abuse"| N1["Not actionable"]
    E1 -->|"Yes, directly or by INNUENDO"| E2{"Does it REFER to the plaintiff?"}
    E2 -->|"No"| N2["Not actionable"]
    E2 -->|"Yes — intention irrelevant (Hulton v Jones; Cassidy)"| E3{"Was it PUBLISHED to a third person?"}
    E3 -->|"Sent to the plaintiff alone"| N3["No publication — no defamation"]
    E3 -->|"Yes, or the defendant knew a third party would read it"| L["DEFAMATION established — then consider the defences"]

Case Laws

  • [C-21] Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures (1934) — a film imputing that the plaintiff had been seduced; libel by innuendo.
  • [C-24] Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad (1958) — a letter in a language the plaintiff could not read; publication established.
  • [C-26] D.P. Choudhary v Manjulata (1997) — a false newspaper report that a young woman ran away with a boy; libel, substantial damages for injury to reputation and marriage prospects.
  • Hirabai Jehangir v Dinshaw Edulji (1927) and Girja Prasad Sharma v Umashankar Pathak (1972) — the preponderant Indian view that slander too is actionable per se.
  • Hulton v Jones (1910) — a fictional name matching a real person; intention irrelevant.
  • Cassidy v Daily Mirror (1929) — innocent publication still defamatory by innuendo.
  • Tolley v J.S. Fry & Sons (1931) — an amateur golfer’s picture used in an advertisement; defamatory innuendo of paid endorsement.
  • Parvathi v Mannar (1884) — the Madras view requiring special damage for slander.

Defences to Defamation

A Member of Parliament calls a named citizen “a smuggler” during a debate on the floor of the House. The words are plainly defamatory and plainly false. The citizen has no remedy in tort at all — because some occasions are so important to public life that the law protects even a deliberate lie spoken on them.

Three defences, and one that is not

Besides the general defences of Unit 2, defamation has three special defences.

A. Justification (truth).

Truth is a complete defence in civil law. The law will not compensate a person for the loss of a reputation he never deserved.

Two points:

  1. The defendant must prove the statement substantially true; he need not prove every incidental detail.
  2. Motive is irrelevant — a true statement published maliciously is still protected in tort. (Contrast the criminal law: under s.499 IPC, truth is a defence only if publication was also for the public good.)

B. Fair comment.

An honest comment on a matter of public interest is protected. Four requirements:

  1. It must be a comment, that is, an expression of opinion — not an assertion of fact.
  2. It must be fair — an opinion an honest person could hold on the facts.
  3. The facts commented on must be true and either stated or well known.
  4. It must be on a matter of public interest — the conduct of public figures, the administration of justice, published books, plays and performances.

Malice destroys the defence: a comment made not honestly but to injure is not fair comment.

C. Privilege.

Some occasions are protected because free speech on them matters more than the individual’s reputation.

  1. Absolute privilege — a complete defence, even if the statement was false and made maliciously. It covers:

    1. Statements in parliamentary proceedings (Art. 105 and Art. 194 of the Constitution).
    2. Statements in judicial proceedings by judges, counsel, parties and witnesses.
    3. Certain State communications between officers of State in the course of official duty.
    4. Fair and accurate reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings, by statute.

  2. Qualified privilege — a defence only in the absence of malice. It arises where the maker has a legal, social or moral duty to make the statement and the recipient a corresponding interest in receiving it: a former employer’s reference, a complaint to the proper authority, a report to the police.

The examinable point is the contrast: absolute privilege survives malice; qualified privilege is destroyed by it. This is where Unit 1’s malice topic connects to Unit 4.

D. Not a defence — however tempting.

  1. Innocence or good faith. An honest belief in the truth of the statement is no defence (Cassidy, Hulton v Jones). This answers the good-faith-publisher problem.
  2. Repetition. “I only repeated what I heard” is no defence; every republication is a fresh publication.
  3. An apology does not defeat the claim, though it may reduce damages.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the two privileges

Absolute privilege = the occasion protects the speaker whatever his motive (Parliament, courts). Qualified privilege = the occasion protects him only while he acts honestly; prove malice and the defence collapses. Writing “privilege is a defence” without saying which kind is the commonest way to lose these marks.

Article 105(2), Constitution of India: “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof…”

Article 194(2) makes identical provision for the Legislature of every State.

In Simple Terms: what an MP or MLA says on the floor of the House cannot be sued upon at all, however untrue or spiteful. The remedy, if any, lies with the House itself — not with a civil court.

flowchart TD
    D["Defamation established — what defences?"]
    D --> J["JUSTIFICATION (truth) — complete in civil law; motive irrelevant"]
    D --> F["FAIR COMMENT — opinion, fair, on TRUE facts, matter of public interest; DESTROYED by malice"]
    D --> P["PRIVILEGE"]
    P --> AP["ABSOLUTE — Parliament (Arts. 105, 194) · judicial proceedings · State communications; SURVIVES malice"]
    P --> QP["QUALIFIED — duty and corresponding interest; DESTROYED by malice"]
    D --> X["NOT defences: good faith · innocent publication · repetition · apology"]

Case Laws

  • Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath (1985) — the defendant failed to prove the truth of his allegations; justification rejected.
  • M.C. Verghese v T.J. Ponnan (1970) — communication between husband and wife; the Supreme Court considered publication and privilege.
  • Horrocks v Lowe (1975) — qualified privilege is lost only on proof of malice, not mere unreasonableness.
  • Cassidy v Daily Mirror (1929) — innocence is no defence.
  • Kartar Singh v State of Punjab (1956) — fair comment on the conduct of public servants.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Law of Torts topics

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam