What is Defamation?
Defamation means saying or writing things about someone that aren’t true and harm their reputation in the eyes of regular people. If someone purposely says or publishes false and harmful statements to ruin someone’s reputation, it’s called defamation, and it’s against the law. A person’s reputation is like their own possession, and harming it can lead to legal consequences. Defamation can happen through words (spoken) or in writing (written). When false things are written, like in printed material or images, it’s called libel, and if spoken, it’s called slander.
Defamation’s roots are found in Roman and German legal systems. Romans deemed offensive chants worthy of capital punishment, while early English and German laws sanctioned insults with tongue removal. By the late 18th century, England only considered imputation of crime or social disease as slander, expanded later by the Slander of Women Act. French defamation laws were strict, penalizing prominent retractions in newspapers severely, permitting only truth as a defense for publications about public figures. In Italy, defamation is a criminal offense, where truth rarely serves as a valid excuse for defamation.
Defamation Laws in India
Citizens enjoy various freedoms under Article 19 of the Constitution, but Article 19(2) introduces reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression outlined in Article 19(1)(a). Exceptions include contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offense.
Defamation is actionable under both civil and criminal law. In civil cases, it falls under the Law of Torts, resulting in damages awarded to the claimant. In criminal law, defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable, and compoundable offense. A police officer can only arrest with a magistrate-issued arrest warrant. The Indian Penal Code prescribes a simple imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both as punishment for defamation.
Civil Defamation
For a successful defamation case, false statements must harm someone’s reputation without their consent. The harmful content should be designed to damage the reputation of an individual or a group, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The evaluation of whether it damages reputation should be based on how an average person perceives and understands the matter.
Additionally, the statements should specifically target an individual or a group; general claims like “all politicians are corrupt” are too broad for compensation.
The false statement must be communicated to a third party, either spoken or written, for defamation to occur. If a letter is sent in an unknown language, requiring someone else to read it, any defamatory statement in it still constitutes defamation, even if it was sent as a private letter, as the involvement of a third person was necessary to read it. Monetary compensation can be sought from the defendant in such defamation cases.
If all these criteria are met, a defamation case can proceed successfully. The accused can present defenses, arguing that the statement they published was true, or that their comments were fair and in the public interest, grounded in true events. Some individuals have the privilege to make statements, even if they are defamatory, such as those involved in judicial proceedings or members of parliament. If the defendant cannot prove their actions, the lawsuit is deemed successful.
Criminal Defamation
Essentially, it’s a form of defamation that could lead to imprisonment. In criminal cases, proving intent to defame is crucial. The accusation must be made with malicious intent to harm someone’s reputation, or at least with the knowledge that the publication is likely to do so. It must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the action was intended to lower another person’s reputation.
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, outlines defamation and its exceptions. Any words or signs intentionally imputed to cause harm, or with the knowledge that harm will result, may constitute defamation. Even imputations against a deceased person could be defamatory if they would have harmed the person’s reputation while alive. This extends to entities like companies or associations. Defamation only occurs if the alleged statement directly or indirectly diminishes the moral, intellectual character, or respect for caste or calling in the eyes of others.
Exceptions:
People making defamatory statements can be exempt from punishment if they fit into one of the ten exceptions outlined in Section 499. These include:
1. Stating any truth made for the public good, although truth is rarely a defence unless for public benefit.
2. Expressing opinions in good faith about the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of their public duties.
3. Offering opinions in good faith about the conduct of any person related to a public question.
4. Publishing true reports of court proceedings or their outcomes is not considered defamation.
5. Forming opinions in good faith about the merits of a civil or criminal case decided by a court or the conduct of individuals involved in that case.
6. Expressing opinions about the merits of any performance presented for public judgement or about the author is not defamation if done in good faith.
7. Passing censures in good faith by individuals without authority over others is not defamation. Censure involves formally expressing severe disapproval.
8. Accusing someone of an offense to a person with lawful authority over the accused in good faith is an exception to defamation. Examples include complaints about servants to masters and children to parents.
9. Making statements about the character of a person is not defamation if done to protect the interests of the person making the statement, another person, or for the public good.
10. Conveying cautions to one person about another is not defamation if intended for the well-being of the recipient or another person, or for the public good.
Constitutionality of Defamation Laws
Debates have arisen regarding defamation laws being seen as a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the criminal aspects of defamation align with the constitution and do not contradict the right to free speech. The court emphasised that while freedom of speech and expression is highly revered, it is not without limitations. The right to life, as defined in Article 21, encompasses the right to one’s reputation and should not be undermined by the free speech rights of others.
Role Of Media
The media is acknowledged as the fourth pillar of society, alongside the executive, legislature, and judiciary. In the modern era, media has gained significant importance in various aspects of our economy, particularly in shaping public opinion. Newspapers, television, the Internet, and other sources keep us connected with the media.
As a result, envisioning life without the media in the present time is nearly impossible. It has become a crucial component of our daily existence, and our lives would feel incomplete without it. Effective laws are necessary to regulate the operations of the media.
Who is a celebrity?
In Titan Industries Ltd. vs. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the Delhi High Court defined a celebrity as “a famous or a well-known person and is merely a person to whom many people talk about or know about.” The court also stated that “the right to publicity” is the right to control the commercial use of a person’s identity.
Privacy in India
The Information Technology Act (ITA) of 2000 stands as India’s most extensive legal framework concerning internet privacy. The ITA includes regulations that offer some protection for online privacy in certain situations but may compromise it in others. Notably, the ITA does not address issues such as the legal standing of social media content in India, the merging and sharing of data across databases, the transmission of images of one’s “private parts” on the internet, whether users have the right to be informed about cookies and do-not-track options, and the use of electronic personal identifiers. The legislative gaps in the ITA contribute to a gradual erosion of online users’ privacy.
Celebrities often become subjects of personalization, with the public displaying curiosity about every aspect of their lives, from personal affairs to trivial details like clothing, cosmetics, and places visited. Due to the distant nature of celebrity-personal audience relationships, there is no inherent exchange of information. Consequently, celebrities strive to keep their personal details confidential to avoid potential embarrassment, shame, and feelings of insecurity.
Media trials vs. Judiciary
No legal system permits the media to conduct trials. Media trials and journalism have two sides. Sometimes, journalists create a predetermined image of an accused, damaging their reputation and potentially influencing the trial and judgment. Media trials have become more significant in India, with instances where the media takes the case into its own hands, passing judgments against the accused and undermining fair trials in court. The media can influence people’s thinking, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when news channels focused on deaths and new cases, instilling fear, while emphasizing recoveries could motivate and contribute positively. The media shapes people’s perceptions, bringing both positive and harmful effects.
Cases regarding Media Trials
The Case of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another vs Central Bureau of Investigation case in 2013 grabbed significant media attention and remained in the headlines for an extended period. In May 2008, the tragic murder of Arushi and her domestic helper Hemraj occurred. Initially, a large number of names were on the suspect list. The media coverage was widely perceived as a trial by media, making scandalous claims against Aarushi and other accused individuals. Despite lacking reliable evidence, the media questioned Arushi’s character and her relationship with Hemraj. In November 2013, the parents were convicted of the murder and received life sentences. Many critics argued that the case relied on weak evidence, insufficient to conclusively implicate the parents, with other potential suspects overlooked. The media trial further fueled public doubts. The Talwars appealed the verdict, leading to their acquittal by the Allahabad High Court in 2017, which granted them the benefit of the doubt and considered the evidence insufficient.
The Bombay High Court ruled in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case that the media should refrain from covering ongoing investigations and current events that serve the public interest instead of what they think the public wants to hear. Although not all reports on the list are likely to cause prejudice to an existing investigation, it was established by the ruling.
The following are some examples:
For instance, in cases of suicide, presenting the deceased as weak or violating their privacy is not allowed. Character assassination, tarnishing a person’s reputation, and making disparaging remarks about the accused during an ongoing inquiry are also prohibited. Engaging in interviews with victims, witnesses, or their families, revealing crucial witness versions, and publishing confessions allegedly made to police officers without explaining the intricacies of the Evidence Act,1872 are restricted. Additionally, printing images of an accused for easier identification, prematurely deciding on guilt or innocence, forecasting future actions, and leaking sensitive investigative data are not permissible. Operating against the terms of the programme Code outlined in Section 5 of the Cable TV Network Act and Rule 6 of the Cable TV Network Rules may lead to contempt of court. The bench emphasizes that while these guidelines are indicative, any media report must adhere to the Programme Code, journalistic standards, and the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Regulations to avoid regulatory action.
Conclusion
From printed publications like the Bengal Gazette to digital ones, media has changed and evolved over time. India does not have a specific law safeguarding press freedom, in contrast to the US. For the media to function freely, political influences and restrictions must be removed. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t have to base editorial decisions on audience, sponsors, or ratings.
Everyone can benefit from having a good reputation. Any harm done to such an asset can be resolved lawfully. Laws against defamation were passed in order to stop people from maliciously exercising their right to free speech and expression. It is appropriate that Indian law does not distinguish between slander and libel. If there hadn’t been a written publishing of the matter, there would have been opportunities for defamation and legal escape.
Discussing ongoing cases through debates or conversations is fruitless since many of these disputes lack evidence and await a genuine legal trial outcome. In today’s information-rich environment, there’s an inherent pressure to stay active on television and other media platforms. Striking a balance in regulating the media without compromising its democratic purpose in a highly competitive landscape poses a challenge. The question arises: who should be responsible for enforcing these limitations?
While allowing the media to report news is essential, when it comes to interference with the legal system, the judiciary can establish fair regulations. These restrictions shouldn’t compromise reporting quality but must define crucial boundaries, particularly in sensitive instances in India, to prevent media trials.