Write-up for 8th September

Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s
reputation decreases the respect, regard or confidence in which a person is held; or induces
disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person is known as
defamation.
Section 499 of IPC deals with the concept of defamation whereas Section 500 of IPC deals
with the penal provisions for violating 499.
Essential requirements to prove defamation:
1) Statement- There must be a statement which can be in spoken, written, pictured or even
gestured form.
2) Publication- The statement should be considered published when a third party is able to
hear or see it. If there is no publication there is no injury of reputation and no action will
arise.
3) Injury- The statement must tend to injure the reputation of a person to whom it refers.
4) Falsity- The defamatory statement must be false. If the statement is not false then the
statement will not be considered as defamatory statement.
5) Unprivileged- In order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. There
are certain circumstances, under which a person cannot sue someone for defamation.
Defamation can be of two types-
Libel is a representation made in a permanent form like writing, movie, picture etc. For e.g.,
X printed some advertisement saying Y is bankrupt but Y was not thus it was representation
in a specific form.
Slander is the publication of a defamatory statement in transient form like spoken words or
gestures. For e.g., A questions the chastity of B in an interview, A is slanderous.

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Ignorance of facts may be excused but not ignorance of law.
Case law:
Hans Raj vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
The appellant has sought the information regarding the special recruitment of teaching posts
in KV of North Eastern Region through Direct recruitment examination.
The appellant filed the RTI to seek information regarding the same but was deprived of the
Copy of his OMR sheet by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).
The CPIO was under the impression that he is not required to provide the answer sheet as per
the said advertisement mentioned in para 5(4) which is placed as under:
"KVS/CBSE shall not upload the images of OMR sheet and no challenges after uploading
Answer keys whatsoever shall be entertained from the applicants after the conduct of the
examination."
The Commission considers that there was clear violation of the RTI Act, by not providing the
OMR sheet to the appellant. 
The Malafide intention of the CPIO is not apparent but his lack of understanding of the
nuances of the RTI Act is prima facie proved. The latin maxim Ignorantia juris non excusat
or ignorantia legis neminem excusat applies well in the present case. The CPIO who is
unaware of his responsibility under the Act cannot escape liability for violating the right to
information of the appellant merely because it was clearly expressed in the newspaper that
KVS shall not upload the images of the OMR sheet.

Write-up for 9th September

Negligence
Negligence’ in general sense means carelessness. Legally we define Negligence as the breach
of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the
plaintiff.
Case Law- 
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson has evolved the principle that we each have a duty of
care to our neighbour or someone we could reasonably expect to be affected by our acts or
omissions. It was held that, despite no contract existed between the manufacturer and the
person suffering the damage an action for negligence could succeed since the plaintiff was
successful in her claim that hat she was entitled to a duty of care even though the defective
good i.e. a bottle of ginger beer with a snail in it was bought, not by herself, but by her friend.

Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare

The maxim is a principle in the constitutional and administrative law which means that a
person to whom an authority or decision-making power has been delegated to from a higher
source, cannot, in turn, delegate again to another unless the original delegation explicitly
authorized it.
Case Law- 
In Ultra Tech Cement Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors., the Kerala High Court
held that Sub-delegation implies a further delegation of the same power which was originally
delegated by the legislature. The governing principle is that legislative powers must be
exercised by the delegatee himself and by none else. A delegatee cannot further delegate his
power unless the parent law permits it to do so. In the above context, the doctrine delegatus
non potest delegare, that is, a delegatee cannot further delegate, comes into play. Thus, if a
law confers power on the Central Government to make rules, it cannot further delegate that
power to any other officer, unless the parent law itself gives authority to the Government to
that effect.