Defamation — Libel, Slander & Defences

Defamation protects reputation — a statement that lowers a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, published to a third person.

Libel vs Slander

flowchart TD
    A["DEFAMATION"]:::root
    A --> B["LIBEL<br/>written / permanent form<br/>actionable PER SE"]:::leaf
    A --> C["SLANDER<br/>spoken / transient form<br/>usually needs SPECIAL DAMAGE"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Essentials:<br/>(1) defamatory statement<br/>(2) refers to the plaintiff<br/>(3) published to a third person"]:::ess
    A --> E["Defences: justification (truth),<br/>fair comment, privilege"]:::def

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef ess fill:#FFF7E6,stroke:#8a6d1e,color:#000;
    classDef def fill:#E6FFE6,stroke:#1E8A3A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

• Libel — defamation in a written or permanent form — is actionable per se (no proof of special damage needed).
• Slander — defamation in a spoken or transient form — usually requires proof of special damage, except in four cases: imputation of a crime, a contagious disease, unchastity of a woman, or unfitness for one’s trade or office.
• An innuendo is a statement defamatory only by reason of facts the audience knows (an apparently innocent statement with a hidden defamatory meaning).

The Defences

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A newspaper publishes that a well-known businessman “is under investigation for fraud.” The statement is false. The paper pleads it was only reporting a rumour and meant no harm. Is it liable in defamation?

I — Issue

Whether a false published imputation of fraud is defamatory, and whether “merely repeating a rumour” or absence of intention to harm is a defence.

R — Rule

Defamation requires a defamatory statement, referring to the plaintiff, published to a third person. An imputation of a crime is defamatory. Repeating a rumour is no defence (the repeater is treated as the maker), and intention is irrelevant — the test is the effect on reputation. The only complete answers are truth, fair comment or privilege.

A — Analysis

The statement imputes fraud — clearly lowering the businessman’s reputation — refers to him by name, and was published to the paper’s readers. The decoy is twofold: “we only repeated a rumour” and “we meant no harm.” Neither helps — a person who repeats a defamatory statement is liable as if he originated it, and defamation does not require intention to defame. Since the statement is false, justification fails; it is a bare assertion of fact, not fair comment; and no privilege attaches to a newspaper’s general reporting of an unverified rumour.

C — Conclusion

The newspaper is liable in defamation. The imputation of fraud is defamatory and false; repeating a rumour and lack of intent are no defence, and no truth/fair-comment/privilege defence is available.

📄 Get all 5 units — Notes + Question Bank (₹199) with 50+ solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Buy the bundle · Free Unit 1 sample · All Law of Torts topics