You are on page 1of 22




Submitted to:

Submitted by:
Semester III
Section A
Roll no. 47
Submitted on: 02/09/2014



At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my
teacher, for putting his trust in me and giving me a
project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver. Sir , thank
you for an opportunity to help me grow.
My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the
infrastructure in the form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great
help for the completion of this project.

Ayushi Dwivedi
Semester III
Roll No: 47



Research Methodology...........................................................4
List of Abbreviations..............................................................5
Meaning and Definitions of Defamation................................7
Essentials to the tort of Defamation.....................................8-9
Types of tort of Defamation..................................................10
Defences to the tort of Defamation..................................11-17
Defamation and Freedom of Speech................................18-19


To understand the meaning and essential ingredients of defamation.
To briefly acknowledge the types of tort of defamation.
To learn about the defences of defamation.

The present study is a doctrinal and descriptive study based on the critical
review of both primary and secondary sources. Secondary and Electronic
resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic.
Books and other references have been primarily helpful in giving this project a
firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the sources.



& And
AIR All India Reporter
e.g. Example
v. Versus
Ors. Others
viz Namely
i.e. That is
Pvt. Private
Ltd. Limited
IPC Indian Penal Code



A mans reputation is his property and is more valuable than any other tangible asset. Every
man has the right to have his reputation preserved inviolate. This right of reputation is
acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person as part of the personal security
It is a jus in rem, a right good against the entire world. A mans reputation is his property
more valuable than other property.
Indeed, if we reflect on the degree of suffering
occasioned by loss of character, and compares it with that occasioned by loss of property; the
amount of the former injury far exceeds that of the latter
. Defamation, as defined by some of
the is the publication of a statement which reflects on a persons reputation and tends to lower
him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them
shun or avoid him.

The law of defamation like many other branches of the law of Torts provides for balancing
of interests. The competing interest which has to be balanced against the interest which a
person has in his reputation is the interest which every person has in freedom of speech. The
Law of Defamation provides defences to the wrong such as truth and privilege thus also
protecting right of freedom of speech but at the same time marking the boundaries within
which it may be limited. In India, tort law is obtained from British Common Law and is yet
uncodified. Therefore the existing law relating to defamation places reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of
the Indian Constitution and is saved by clause (2) of Article 19.
As it is said A good name is better than precious ointment. The Holy Quran also says that
the name with men are called by men on earth shall their name in Aljana.This stresses the
importance of a having and protecting ones good name. It is therefore important, to ensure
that one guides against any attempt at destroying a name and reputation one has worked
tirelessly to build, and use every appropriate legal means to redeem it when defamed.

Blackstones Commentary of the Laws of England, Vol. 1 (IV Edition), p. 101
Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR 7 Eq 488
De Crespigny v. Wesllelley, (1829) 5 Bing 392
Ayesha, The Tort Of Defamation,
in-india-and-the-united-kingdom/, Accessed on 31
October, 2011

II. Meaning and Definitions of Defamation
Defamation is the injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injuries the reputation of
another, he does so at his own risk as in the case of an interference with the property.

As per the Definition contained in the Section 499 of IPC, "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, except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, do defame that person".
According to Blacks Law Dictionary, Defamation is The act of tendering the reputation of
another by making a false statement to the third person.

According to Winfield, Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lowers a
person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society generally; or which tends to
make them shun or avoid that person.

The wrong of defamation is in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning
another person without lawful justification. That person must be in being. Hence not only
does an action of defamation not survive for or against the estate of a deceased person, but a
statement about a deceased or unborn person is not actionable at the suit of the relatives,
however great their plan and distress, unless the statement is in some way defamatory of

As stated by the authors of the code, defamation consists in its tendency to cause that
description of pain, which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the
unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creatures and those inconveniences to which a person,
who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. According to the classical
definition of the term defamation as given by Cane J., in the case of Scott v.
defamation means a false satement about a person to his discredit.In other words,
defamation can be explained as publication of a statement without justification or excuse of
that which is calculated to injure the reputation of another.

Bangia,Dr. R.K., Kumar, Dr. Narendra Law of Torts, 20
Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 2010, p. 183
Garner, Bryan A. Blacks Law Dictionary, 9
Edition, West Publications, p. 479
P.H. Winfield, A Textbook of The Law of Tort, 5
Edition, 1950. P. 242.
R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts, 17
Edition, 1977, p. 138


III. Essentials to the Tort of Defamation
The claimant must prove that the statement in question conveys a defamatory meaning
Essentials to the tort of defamation comprises points must be proved for an action of
defamation to succeed in court. The essentials are as follows :
1) The Statement must be Defamatory.
a. If, it exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or
b. Injures him in his trade, business, profession, calling or office, or
c. Causes him to be shunned or avoided in society.

INNUENDO Words not necessarily defamatory on their face in their natural and
ordinary meaning but defamatory because of a secondary meaning which would be
understood by persons privy to the words or taken in light of the extraneous
circumstances. The unspoken or unwritten but apparent, insinuated meaning of words.

In the case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror News Paper,
A newspaper published a
photograph of a man and a woman. Underneath appeared the words 'C and B, whose
engagement has been announced'. C was already married to B, and the latter sued the
newspaper proprietors, alleging that the words imputed 'by innuendo' that she was
immorally cohabiting with C and that several friends thought this to be the case. The
plaintiff was awarded L 500 damages, although the defendants acted quite innocently.

2) The Statement must refer to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff must show the statement refers to him. It is not necessary that the plaintiff should
be described by his full name, it is sufficient if he is described by the initials, even by
fictitious name provided, he can satisfy the court that he was the person being referred to.
It may be noted that the question is not who is meant to, but rather who is hit by the
statement, a statement referring to a real person alleging something true about him may
yet be defamation of another person bearing the same name.
In the case of Newstead v. London express newspapers Ltd.,
the defendant newspaper
ran a piece describing the conviction for bigamy of Harold Newstead, thirty-year-old

165 US 150
249 US 152

Camberwell man (Camberwell is a district within London). There happened to be two
men who fitted that description: a barman and a hairdresser. The story was about the
barman, and quite true about him but the hairdresser had nothing to do with any bigamy
charge. He sued the newspaper, and won. An ordinary reader of the article could easily
have thought it referred to the hairdresser.

3) The Statement must be Published.
Means that it must be communicated made known to some other person, other than the
person to whom it refers. No civil action lies, if the defamatory statements are
communicated only to the person spoken of, because, that cannot injure his reputation,
thought it may injure his self-esteem. It must a communication to the third person. A
communication of husband or wife, of defamatory statement against wife or husband,
constitutes a sufficient public.
But uttering of a defamatory statement by a husband to a
wife or by wife to a husband in presence of others is no publication on a common law
principle that, husband and wife are one person. Publication need not be intention.

4) The Statement must be False.
If it is true, no action would lie; for truth is an absolute defence in an action for
defamation. A false statement with reference to the plaintiff. Burden of proof lies on the
defendant, and falsity is presumed in the plaintiffs favour.
In D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata
there was publication of a statement in a local daily
in Jodhpur that Manjulata on the pretext of attending her evening BA classes ran away
with a boy named Kamlesh. The girl belonged to a well educated respectable family. She
was seventeen years of age. The news item was untrue and had been irresponsibly
published without any justification. This was defamatory and the defendants, the
newspaper publishers were held liable.


Wenman v. Ash, (1853) 13 CB 836.
AIR 1997 Raj 170

IV. Types of the Tort of Defamation
Publication of the statement, which in its true legal sense means the communication of
defamatory matter to some person other than the person of whom it is written can be made in
the following two ways:
Libel: The publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of
another person without lawful justification or excuse. The statement must be in a printed
form, e.g., writing, printing, pictures, cartoons, statue, waxwork effigy etc.
Slander: A false and defamatory statement by spoken words and/or gestures tending to injure
the reputation of others. It is in a transient form. It also involves the sign language used by the
physically disabled.
Distinction between libel and slander:
The basic differences between the torts of libel and slander are as follows:
1. Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example, writing, wax images,

films ,
radio and television broadcasts, and public performances of plays.
Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form.
2. Libel is actionable per se whereas damage must be proved for slander, except in four
Where there is an allegation that the claimant has committed an offence which is
punishable with imprisonment;
Where there is an imputation that the claimant is suffering from a contagious disease,
such as venereal disease, leprosy, plague and, arguably, HIV/AIDS;
Where there is an imputation that a woman has committed adultery or otherwise
behaved in an 'unchaste' fashion (Slander of Women Act 1891); or
Where there is an imputation that the claimant is unfit to carry on his trade, profession
or calling.
3. Libel may be prosecuted as a crime as well as a tort, whereas slander is only a tort.

Monson v Tussaud's Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671
Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581

V. Defences to Defamation
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are
permissible in law.The defences to an action for defamation are:
1. Justification (or truth)
In a civil action for defamation, truth is a complete defence. However under criminal law, it
must also be proved that the imputation was made for the public good. Under the civil law,
merely proving that the statement was true is a good defence the reason being that the law
will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he
either does no or ought not to possess. But it is not necessary to justify every detail of the
charge or general terms of abuse, provided that the gist of the libel is provided to be in
substance correct, and that the detail, etc., which are not justified produce no different effect
on the mind of the reader than the actual truth would do.
The defence is available even if
the statement is made maliciously and if the statement is substantially true but incorrect in
respect of certain other minor particulars, the defence will still be available. The truth of
defamatory word is complete defence to an action of libel or slander though it is not so in a
criminal trial.
It is not sufficient justification to prove that there was some sort of rumour; it
must be proved that it was true.

If the defendant is not able to prove the truth of the facts, the defence cannot be availed.

The Defamation Act, 1952 (England) provides that if there are several charges of defamation
and the defendant is successful in proving the truth of only some of them, the defence of
justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the
reputation. Although there is no specific provision in India regarding the above, the law is
possibly the same as prevailing in England.

Per Lord Denman in Cooper v. Lawson, (1838) 8 AD & E 746, 753.
Raghunath Damodhar v. Janardhan Gopal, (1891) 1 H&C 153.
Watkin v. Hall, (1868) LR3 QB 396
Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285


2. Fair Comment
This defence, known until 2010 as fair comment,
involves making fair comments on
matters of public interest. Thus legitimate criticism is no tort; should loss ensue to the
plaintiff, it would be damnum sine injuria. Matters of public interest are not to be understood
in a narrow sense.
Comment is a statement of opinion on facts. A comment is an expression of opinion or facts
that is a conclusion or an inference from them and should be distinguished from statement of
facts. If it is a comment it must be distinguished from a statement of fact. Whether a
statement one of factor comment depends on language, context and other circumstances.
A simple illustration given by the IPC 1860 is as follows . A says of a book published by Z,
"Z's book is foolish, Z must must be a weak man, Z's book is indecent ;Z must be an impure
mind."These comments are and will be protected if they are not malicious.
A says "I am not surprised that Z book is foolish and indecent, for he is weak and a libertine".
This is not a comment but a statement of fact and A cannot plead the defence of fair comment
but must prove the words to be true.

In Campbell v. spottiswoode , a well known case on this subject, the plaintiff who was a
protestant dissenting minister and editor of a newspaper published in its letters on this subject
of exongelising the Chinese and the none of various persons who had promised to buy paper
in order to promote propaganda. The defendant, the printer of 'The Saturday Review'
published in it an article which imputed to the plaintiff an attempt to make money out of a
pretended object and deceive the public by false list of subscribers. The defendant was held
liable as there were no facts to warrant the imputations.

A fair and a bonafide comment on a matter of public interest is no libel . The right had been
recognized in cases of criticism of works of literature and art more than a century ago. The
form of plea formerly was "that the words complained of are a fair comment made bonafide
and without malice on a matter of public interest".
The word fair embraces the meaning of honest and also of relevancy. The view expressed
must be honest and must be such as can fairly be called criticism. The word fair refers to the
language employed and not the mind of the writer. Hence it is possible that a fair comment

Spiller v. Joseph, (2010) UKSC 53.

should yet be published maliciously. The burden of proving that a comment is fair is on the
defendant. He must establish that the facts upon which the comment thereupon is warranted
in the sense that it is such as might be made by a reasonable man. Once the defendant has
established that in this sense the comment is fair the onus is shifted to the plaintiff if he
wishes to prove that the prima facie protection is displaced by the presence of malice in the

Essentials for Fair Comment
For this defence to be available, the following essentials are required:
(i) It must be a comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than an assertion of fact
(ii) The comment must be fair, i.e., must be based on the truth and not on untrue or invented
(iii) The matter commented upon must be of public interest.
The word fair embraces the meaning of honest and also of relevancy. Mere exaggeration or
gross exaggeration would not make the comment unfair.
The comment to be fair must be
based on true facts and must be objectively fair in the sense that any man however,
prejudiced and obstinate could have honestly held the views expressed. If due to malice on
the part of the defendant, the comment is a distorted one, his comment ceases to be fair and
he cannot take such a defence. In Gregory V Duke of Brunswick,
the plaintiff, an actor,
appeared on the stage of a theatre but the defendant and other persons in malice started
hooting and hissing and thereby caused him to lose his engagement. This was held to
actionable and an unfair comment on the plaintiffs performance and the defendants were
held to be guilty.

3. Privilege
There are certain occasions when the law recognizes that the right of free speech outweighs
the plaintiffs right to reputation: the law treats such occasions to be privileged and a
defamatory statement made on such occasions is not actionable. The defence is somewhat

Merivale v. Carson, (1887) 20 QBD 175.
(1843) 6 M & G, 205.

technical : the defendant must show the court that the occasion on which the statement was
made falls within an established head of privilege. Privilege is of two kinds:

Absolute Privilege
Certain statements are allowed to be made when the larger interest of the community
overrides the interest of the individual. No action lies for the defamatory statement even
though it may be false or malicious. In such cases, the public interest demands that an
individuals right to reputation should give way to the freedom of speech. Absolute Privilege
is recognized in the following cases:
(i) Parliamentary Proceedings
Articles 105 (2) of the Indian Constitution provided that a statement made by a member of
either house of Parliament in Parliament, and the publication by or under the authority of any
report, paper, votes or proceedings, cannot be questioned in a court of law.
A similar
privilege exists in respect of state legislatures, according to Article 194(2).
(ii) Judicial Proceedings
No action for libel or slander lies, whether against judges, counsels, witnesses, or parties, for
words written or spoken in the course of proceedings before any court recognized by law,
even though the words written or spoken were written or spoken maliciously without any
justification or excuse and from personal ill will and anger against the person defamed. Such
a privilege also extends to proceedings of the tribunals possessing similar attributes.
(iii)Military and Naval proceedings
Proceedings of naval and military tribunals are absolutely privileged. Statements made before
a naval or military Court of Inquiry by a military personal are protected. Reports made in the
course of military or naval duty, such as adverse opinions expressed by one officer of the
conduct of another, are absolutely privileged, even if made maliciously and without
reasonable or probable cause.

(iv) State Proceedings
A statement made by an officer of the State to another in the course of official duty is
absolutely privileged for reasons of public policy. Such privilege also extends to reports made

Rahim Baksh v. Bacha Lal AIR 1929 All 214
Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, (1869) LR 5 QB 94

in the course of military and naval duties. Communications relating to State Matters made by
one Minister to another or by a Minister to the Crown is also absolutely privileged.

Qualified Privilege
For communications made in the course of legal, social or moral duty, for self-protection,
protection of common interest, for public good and proceedings at public meetings, provided
the absence of malice is proved. Also, there must be an occasion for making the statement.
To avail this defence, the following things must be kept in mind:
(i)The statement should be made in discharge of a public duty or protection of an interest
(ii) Or, it is a fair report of parliamentary, judicial or other public proceedings
(iii) The statement should be made without any malice.
The words of the libel and the circumstance attending its publication may themselves afford
evidence of malice.
A privileged occasion in the present context is an occasion when the
person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty legal, social or moral to make it
to the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.
The Spousal Testimonial Privilege
The spousal testimonial privilege ("spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a
criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any
topic. This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to
refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony
about events that occurred after the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to
testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage (giving rise to a questionable incentive
for an individual to marry a potential witness in order to prevent the potential witness from
testifying against the individual).

VI. Consent to Publication
If a person willingly invites the press to cover his function or he grants an interview on his
own volition, then the press can plead consent if the person turns round to bring an action of

Chatterton v. Secy of State for India in Council, (1895) 2 Q.B. 189.
Moti Lal Raha v. Indra Nath Banerjee, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 907.

defamation. However, if the publication goes beyond the limit of the Initial approval, there
may be grounds for an action.

VII. Death of the Plaintiff
If the person allegedly defamed is dead, it will be difficult to sustain the action because
reputation is a personal possession and only the owner of the reputation can sue for it.

VIII. Res J udicata
If a case of defamation has been tried, lost and won, it will be a waste of time to file a fresh
action on the same matter. Res judicata is to say that the case has come to a logical end and
had died a natural death.

IX. Accord and Satisfaction
It shall be a defence to defamation if there is a mutual settlement between the two parties to
the satisfaction of both of them.

X. Innocent Dissemination
The person circulating the offensive matter can plead that he is ignorant of what he is
disseminating and should therefore be excluded from any legal action. The plaintiff and the
court usually exonerate this category of persons especially in view of the fact that they cannot
pay any damages should the case be awarded against them.
XI. No Third-party communication
If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him
of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no
one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement.

XII. No actual injury
If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement
does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is
not actually capable of being defamatoryan insulting statement that does not actually harm
someone's reputation is prima facienot libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called
the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.
Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures,
which can be used as a defense.
A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
established that for a
public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have
been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as
actual malice).
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove
that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the
remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false,
and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise
from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local
criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to
newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

VI. Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or
chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits. Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the
reputation or rights of others.
Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the
burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to
disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to
the issues.
There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation. Human rights
organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that
criminalize defamation. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on
criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
There are certain defences to defamation without which defences against defamation in the
task of journalists and their public affairs commentators would have been a very dangerous
one indeed. But the law has provided adequate defences to protect all those with honest and
genuine intentions in the discharge of their duties. It behoves the responsible journalist to
carefully consider the defences available in each case before making an incisive commentary
of public interest.


How can a journalist claim privileges?
A case study from Nigeria
In the defamation laws of many states in Nigeria newspaper reports enjoy qualified privilege
if they satisfy the following criteria.
(a) They are fair and accurate reports of legislative proceedings.
(b) They are fair and accurate reports of the public proceedings of the conference of an
international organization of which Nigeria or any of its states is a member.
(c) They are fair and accurate reports of any public proceedings of an international court.
(d) They are fair and accurate reports of any proceedings in public of a body or person
appointed to hold a public enquiry by the government or legislature of any part of the
Commonwealth outside Nigeria.
(e) They are fair accurate reports of any reports of any proceedings before a court exercising
jurisdiction throughout any part of the Commonwealth outside Nigeria under the
Nigerian Army Act 1990 or the Nigerian Navy Act, 1990.
(f) They are fair and accurate copies or extracts from any register kept in pursuance of any
law or Act which is open to inspection by the public or any other document which is
required by any law or Act to be open to inspection by the public.
(g) Notice of advertisement published by or on the authority of a court within Nigeria or
office of such court.



The laws in place to counter the menace of defamation are both satisfactory and reasonable
but in certain areas need to be made more stringent so as to dissuade the celebrity crazy
media from wantonly publishing and broadcasting fraudulent, defamatory matter in order to
make instant money. Thus the protection of privacy and the prevention of press harassment is
also an important issue which needs to be redressed with the better implementation of laws
already existing.
Since no cause of action survives the defamed persons death, it is clear that reputation is
merely a transitory interest, which, by way of the defences available, has to be balanced
against the public interest. Similarly fair comments protect the press when expressing their
views on the actions of politicians, public servants and others in the public eye, provided they
are true.
Defamation does have significance and a very strong one at that as it protects a right which is
essential to for the members of society to co-exist. Obviously, if people do not respect that
right and are allowed to say and publish whatever they want without substantiating it with an
honest reason to believe, then there would be no harmony in society, insecurity would be
rampant and society would be in shambles. However there exists the question of balancing
the interest of both the parties concerned. This debate on how to achieve the correct balance
between the individuals interest in his good name and freedom of speech is a vital attribute
of democratic society. However, while trying to resolve that debate via the development of
the tort of defamation, the courts are hindered by the procedural game which characterises
many libel actions, the unpredictability of the jury, and the absence of developed torts of
invasion of privacy and breach of confidence. Thus more changes need to be taken which do
away with the superfluous procedural games thus leaving behind only the core of the tort to
be implemented. However, the tort of defamation has an ancient history and a capacity for
survival which shall outlive more topical concerns.


The Defamation Act, 1952 (England)
Ashok Kumar v Radha Kanto Pandey AIR 1967 Cal 178
D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj 170
Moti Lal Raha v. Indra Nath Banerjee, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 907
Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285
Rahim Baksh v. Bacha Lal AIR 1929 All 214
Raghunath Damodhar v. Janardhan Gopal, (1891) 1 H&C 153.
Salenadandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy AIR 2009 (NOC) 299 (A.P.)
T.G. Nair Melepurath Sankuni AIR 1971 Kerala 280

Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, (1869) LR 5 QB 94
Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR 7 Eq 488
De Crespigny v. Wesllelley, (1829) 5 Bing 392
Chatterton v. Secy of State for India in Council, (1895) 2 Q.B. 189
Gregory V Duke of Brunswick (1843) 6 M & G, 205
Merivale v. Carson, (1887) 20 QBD 17
Monson v Tussaud's Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671
Per Lord Denman in Cooper v. Lawson, (1838) 8 AD & E 746, 753
Spiller v. Joseph, (2010) UKSC 53
Watkin v. Hall, (1868) LR3 QB 396
Wenman v. Ash, (1853) 13 CB 836
Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581


Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts,(22
edn, 2010), 4.
Tagore Law Lectures, Province of the Law of Tort, 1931, p 32.
A Lakshminath & M. Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyers The law of torts, 46 (10
edn, 2010).
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law ofTorts, (26
edn, 2012), 11.
Justice Yatinder Singh, Cyber Laws, (4
edn, 2011), 25.
Charles Mwangi Waveru, Defense for Defamation
Pranjal Shrivastav, The Tort of Defamation