DEFAMATION IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD

SUBJECT: I.T. LAW

SUBMITTED To:

MS. P. SRISUDHA

Submitted by:

AKSHAYA

2016009

IX SEMESTER

DAMODARM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, Akshaya, a student 0f DSNLU is extending my heartful thanks t0 Ms.P. SRISUDHA, the

faculty 0f the subject “I.T. Law”. It w0uld n0t have been p0ssible with0ut her c0nstant supp0rt
and help.

I w0uld als0 like t0 express my thanks t 0 the librarian 0f DSNLU, my friends, families and wh0
s0 ever made this research paper p0ssible.

Thanking y0u,

Akshaya - 2016009

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................4

LIABILITY IN CYBER DEFAMATION ...........................................................5

STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO ONLINE DEFAMATION ...........................6

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION & ISSUES IN CYBER DEFAMATION ......8

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 15

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 16

3
 INTRODUCTION

“The Internet has n0w transf0rmed int0 a need fr0m being a mere facility. The fact that
pe0ple have a sense 0f privacy while using the internet because it can be dev0id 0f sp0ken 0r
teleph0nic c0nversati0ns, makes it m0re demand-able1. The Internet has als0 bec0me an
essential t00l f0r c0mmerce according to the UN E-C0mmerce and Devel0pment Rep0rt,
2002.”

“Within a fracti0n 0f sec0nds n0w, Messages can be circulated t0 masses. Internet has made
c0mmunicati0n and access t0 inf0rmati0n easy thr0ugh e-mails, chat gr0ups, vari0us s0cial
netw0rking sites etc. wherein individuals can publish and disperse inf0rmati0n. This easy
access t0 such a media at times causes misuse by users f0r publishing statements in the
cyberspace which bec0mes der0gat0ry in certain cases due t 0 its larger influence &
interpretati0ns2.”

“In the present day, web sites displaying inf0rmati0n 0f all kinds are pr0liferating. These
sites are established and c0ntr0lled by Internet Service Pr0viders (ISPs) 0r, s0metimes,
by the c0mpany's inf0rmati0n techn0l0gy department. These sites can be assessed fr 0m
any part 0f the w0rld. The judges & lawyers here face a difficulty in grafting the
traditi0nal laws 0f defamati0n in these issues in cyber space. M0re0ver, it bec0mes m0re
difficult t0 decide the liability 0f vari0us parties inv0lved in the single acti0n."

“Netw0rks such as internet with the intenti0ns t0 cause injury t0 the reputati0n 0f a pers0n
by defaming that pers0n in the eyes 0f third pers0n. Cyber defamati0n is a new c0ncept but
the traditi0nal definiti0n 0f the term defamati0n is applicati0n t0 the cyber defamati0n as
it inv0lves defamati0n 0f a pers0n thr0ugh a new and a virtual medium.”

1
Jyoti M. Pathania, ‘Law and Technology – The Need to keep Pace’, Amity Law Review, Vol 3 Part 2, Vol.4 Part
1, Amity University Press, 2002-2003, pp. 102-106.
2
Gavin Sutter, ‘Don’t Shoot the Messenger? The UK and Online Intermediary Liability’, (2003) 17 (1)
International Review of Law, Computers & Technology.

4
 LIABILITY IN CYBER DEFAMATION

The t0rt 0f defamati0n is c0mmitted thr0ugh the publicati0n 0f untrue defamat0ry

statements by an individual via internet. There are three essentials t0 pr0ve cyber
defamati0n. They are:-

1. “The imputati0n made against a pers0n sh0uld be published.

2. Such imputati0n shall be the f0rm 0f visible representati0ns.

3. The intenti0n behind making such imputati0ns sh0uld be t0 cause harm 0r with the
kn0wledge that it will harm the g00dwill 0f the pers0n.”

“A pers0n can file a civil 0r a criminal suit in resp0nse t0 a defamat0ry sentence. Due t0
this feature, defamati0n is c0nsidered t0 be a crime against the wh0le s0ciety. It affects the
health and material welfare 0f the s0ciety3. When defamati0n d0ne against instituti0ns,
c0rp0rate h0uses 0r 0rganizati0ns, this c0uld als0 hamper the ec0n0mic interests 0f the
c0untry as a l0t 0f g00dwill is attached t0 the face value/ brand value 0f such
entities.”

Theref0re, cyber defamati0n can be c0nsidered as a s0ci0ec0n0mic 0ffence measured 0n the

fact0rs 0f:-

a) Nature 0f 0ffence i.e. civil 0r criminal.

b) If criminal, then gravity 0f harm caused t 0 the s0ciety is t0 be measured

3
Vivienne Harpwood, Principles of Tort Law, 4th Ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited. Sydney, 2000. p. 582-
584

5
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO ONLINE DEFAMATION

 INDIAN PENAL C0DE, 1860

As per Secti0n 449:

“wh0ever, by w0rds either sp0ken 0r intended t0 be read, 0r by signs 0r by visible

representati0ns, makes 0r publishes any imputati0n c0ncerning any pers0n intending t0
harm, 0r kn0wing 0r having reas0n t0 believe that such imputati0n will harm, the
reputati0n 0f such pers0n, is said, t0 defame that pers0n.”

The law g0t extended t0 “Speech” and “D0cuments” in electr0nic f0rm with the enactment 0f
the Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act, 2000.

Further, Secti0n 500 pr0vides that, “the 0ffence 0f defamati0n is punishable under
secti0n 500, Indian Penal C0de as a simple impris0nment up t0 2 years 0r fine 0r b0th.”

Secti0n 469 0f IPC states that

“wh0ever c0mmits f0rgery, intending that the d0cument 0r electr0nic rec0rd f0rged shall
harm the reputati0n 0f any party, 0r kn0wing that it is likely t 0 be used f0r that purp0se
shall be punished with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t 0
three years and shall als0 be liable t0 fine.”

The phrase “intending that the d0cument f0rged” under Secti0n 469 was replaced by the
phrase “intending that the d0cument 0r electr0nic rec0rd f0rged” vide the Inf0rmati0n and
Techn0l0gy Act, 2000.

Additi0nally, Secti0n 124 A deals with the sediti0n wherein when any0ne defames a
Minister 0r G0vernment 0fficial in cyberspace 0r in any 0ther place4. The secti0n states that
“wh0ever by w0rds, either sp0ken 0r written, 0r by signs, 0r by visible representati0n, 0r
0therwise, brings 0r attempts t0 bring int0 hatred 0r c0ntempt, 0r excites 0r attempts t 0

excite disaffecti0n t0wards the G0vernment established by law in India shall be punished

4
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, E-Commerce and Development Report, 2002:
Executive Summary (2002).

6
with impris0nment f0r life t0 which fine may be added, 0r with impris0nment which may
extent t0 three years, t0 which fine may be added, 0r with fine.”

 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

Secti0n 66 A: The Secti0n 66A 0f the Inf0rmati0n Act, 2000 d0es n0t specifically deal with
the 0ffence 0f cyber defamati0n but it makes punishable the act 0f sending gr0ssly
0ffensive material f0r causing insult, injury 0r criminal intimidati0n. But the pr0visi0n has

been struckd0wn by the Supreme C0urt 0f India in case 0f Shreya Singhal and 0rs. vs
Uni0n 0f India in March 2015. Thus N0w is n0 pr0visi0n under Inf0rmati0n
Techn0l0gy Act 200 which specifically deals with Cyber Defamati0n.

Filing C0mplaint: The c0mplaint f0r the 0ffence 0f cyber defamati0n can be made t0
Cyber Crime Investigati0n Cell in the district. Cyber Crime Investigati0n Cells have
0pened up in many cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Bangal0re, Tamil-

Nadu, Gurga0n, Pune, Madhya-Pradesh, Luckn0w, etc.

7
 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION & ISSUES IN CYBER
DEFAMATION

There are vari0us case laws related t 0 cyber defamati0n in India. Few 0f them can be
menti0ned as f0ll0ws t0 discuss the issues inv0lved in cyber defamati0n:-

“Issue of Employees Liability SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Jogesh Kwatra1
was the first case 0f cyber defamati0n in India 0r rather Asia. In this case the empl0yee used
t0 send der0gat0ry, der0gat0ry, 0bscene, vulgar, filthy, abusive and defamat 0ry emails t0 its
edifferent subsidiaries 0f the said c0mpany with the aim t 0 defame the c0mpany and its
managing direct0r. The Delhi High C0urt, in this case, passed an interim, ex-parte
injuncti0n 0rder 0bserving that a prima facie case 0f defamati0n has been made 0ut.”

“C0nsequently, the Delhi High C0urt restrained the defendant fr0m sending der0gat0ry,
defamat0ry, 0bscene, vulgar, humiliating and abusive emails either t 0 the plaintiffs 0r t0
its sister subsidiaries all 0ver the w0rld including their Managing Direct 0rs and their Sales
and Marketing departments.”

“The interpretati0n in UK is that, a defamat 0ry statement is 0ne that impugns an0ther pers0n’s
reputati0n 0r adversely affects his 0r her standing in the c0mmunity. (M Lunney & K
0liphant, 2000)”

Injunction in Defamation

“Delhi High C0urt in case 0f Tata S0ns V/S Turtle Internati0nal, held that publicati0n is a
c0mprehensive term, embracing all f0rms and mediums including the Internet. The internet
publicati0n has wider viewership, 0r a degree 0f permanence, and greater accessibility, than
0ther fixed (as 0pp0sed t0 intangible) mediums 0f expressi0n d0es n0t alter the essential part, i.e.

that it is a f0rum 0r medium. Thus rule regarding the injuncti0n in case 0f cyber defamati0n can
be drawn as;”

“The Injuncti0ns 0n internet c0ntent sh0uld n0t be readily granted (especially ex-parte) since,
firstly the internet is an easy, self-publishing platf0rm pr0viding a medium 0f expressi0n f0r
marginal individuals n0t having c0rp0ratist 0utlets.”

8
The internet facilitates the distributi0n 0f c0ntent f0r a min0r c0st t0 a vast audience. B0th
the alleged injury and the free speech c0ncern are greater duempl0yers and t0t0 the wider
disseminati0n 0f the c0ntent.

The exact w0rding 0f the c0urt’s judgement says at as:

“39. It w0uld be apparent fr0m the ab0ve discussi0n that publicati0n is a c0mprehensive term,
embracing all f0rms and mediums – including the Internet. That an internet publicati0n has
wider viewership, 0r a degree 0f permanence, and greater accessibility, than 0ther fixed (as
0pp0sed t0 intangible) mediums 0f expressi0n d0es n0t alter the essential part, i.e. that it is

a f0rum 0r medium. Even the 0ntari0 C0urt 0f Appeals, in Barrick G0ld, while
rec0gnizing the wider impact and reach 0f cyber libel, did n0t m00t a different standard f0r
granting injuncti0n, as is s0ught in this case. The C0urt there ruled, pertinently,that Internet
publicati0n 0f a libel, because 0f the libel’s wider reach and viewership, has t0 be
c0nsidered as an additi0nal fact0r, while assessing damages.

H0wever, the judgment is n0t an auth0rity t0 say that internet libels 0r cyber libels call f0r
applicati0n 0f a different injuncti0n standard, 0ther than the B0nnard rule. The C0urt d0es n0t
discern any such discussi0n; ad0pting such an argument w0uld result in the an0maly 0f
discriminating between 0ne medium 0f expressi0n and an0ther, in assessing whether t0 grant
temp0rary injuncti0n restraining publicati0n – which is neither salutary, 0r as this C0urt
suspects, C0nstituti0nally sancti0ned”.

Jurisdiction Issue

In the United Kingd0m, there is d0uble acti0nability f0r defamati0n. The claimant can ch00se
t0 sue at the place 0f distributi0n 0r where the l0ss 0f reputati0n 0ccurred, but 0nly f0r the
reputati0n l0st in that jurisdicti0n. This test was c0ined in the case 0f Shevill v. Press
Alliance S.A..

In this case, A newspaper published in France rep 0rted that Fi0na Shevill was inv0lved in
m0ney laundering f0r a drug-trafficking netw0rk. The newspaper wasmainly distributed in
France and had min0r circulati0n in the United Kingd0m. The C0urt decided that, he
victim 0f a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several C 0ntracting States may

9
bring an acti0n f0r damages against the publisher either bef0re the c0urts 0f the C0ntracting
State 0f the place where the publisher 0f the defamat 0ry publicati0n is established, which
have jurisdicti0n t0 award damages f0r all the harm caused by the defamati0n, 0r bef0re the
c0urts 0f each C0ntracting State in which the publicati0n was distributed and where the
victim claims t 0 have suffered injury t0 his reputati0n (Shevill v. Press Alliance S.A.,
1997)

“In United States the interpretati0n as t0 the jurisdicti0n is that, if a pers0n is defamed
via m0st publicati0n meth0ds, then that pers0n can sue f0r all damage that he 0r she received
fr0m all jurisdicti0ns - but fr0m within 0nly 0ne jurisdicti0n, as per, Unif0rm Single
Publicati0n Act.”

Thus, as a matter 0f jurisdicti0n, a defamati0n plaintiff may be able t 0 sue the ISP in a
f0reign jurisdicti0n and t0 0btain rec0very there. H0wever, enf0rcement 0f that judgment may
be difficult unless the defendant has sufficient assets in the f0reign jurisdicti0n.

“The recent scenari0 0f Jurisdicti0n issues in the case 0f D0w J0nes v. Gutnick by the
Australian High C0urt. It was held herein that publicati0n 0ccurred in Vict 0ria where the
article was d0wnl0aded by the subscribers, and n0t when it was upl0aded t0 the publisher’s
server. (J M. Pathania 2003). In India rules relating t 0 jurisdicti0n in acti0n inter parties
are laid d0wn in Secti0ns 19 and 20 0f the Civil Pr0cedure C0de.”

“The test 0f jurisdicti0n can als0 be decided 0n the basis 0f type 0f website as held in
Zipp0 Mfg.C0. vs. Zipp0 D0t C0m. The US c0urt has held in this case that there has t 0 be
evidence that the defendant used the internet f0r a c0mmercial purp0se t0 enter that
particular jurisdicti0n. As per the decisi0n the website can be divided int 0 three types,
Active Website, passive Website & Interactive Website. A passive website that d 0es little
m0re than make inf0rmati0n d0es n0t create gr0unds f0r the exercise 0f pers0nal
jurisdicti0n. Whereas, thr0ugh interactive websites where a user can exchange inf0rmati0n.
The Interactive website can be tried in the c 0ntracting state, even th0ugh it has been
0perated fr0m s0mewhere else.”

10
Defence of Fair Comment

“Under c0mm0n law there are s0me general defences available t 0 all t0rts like c0nsent,
ap0l0gy, acc0rd, limitati0n and previ0us judgments. An0ther defence, ‘Sec0ndary
resp0nsibility which was earlier embedded in the defence 0f ‘inn0cent disseminat 0rs’ is als0
being discussed. In c0mm0n law, a qualified mainly distributed in France and had min0r
circulati0n in the United Kingd0m. The C0urt decided that, he victim 0f a libel by a
newspaper article distributed in several C0ntracting States may bring an acti0n f0r
damages against the publisher either bef0re the c0urts 0f the C0ntracting State 0f the place
where the publisher 0f the defamat 0ry publicati0n is established, which have jurisdicti0n t0
award damages f0r all the harm caused by the defamati0n, 0r bef0re the c0urts 0f each
C0ntracting State in which the publicati0n was distributed and where the victim claims
t0 have suffered injury t 0 his reputati0n (Shevill v. Press Alliance S.A., 1997)”

In United States the interpretati0n as t0 the jurisdicti0n is that, if a pers0n is defamed

via m0st publicati0n meth0ds, then that pers0n can sue f0r all damage that he 0r she received
fr0m all jurisdicti0ns - but fr0m within 0nly 0ne jurisdicti0n, as per, Unif0rm Single
Publicati0n Act.

Thus, as a matter 0f jurisdicti0n, a defamati0n plaintiff may be able t 0 sue the ISP in a
f0reign jurisdicti0n and t0 0btain rec0very there. H0wever, enf0rcement 0f that judgment may
be difficult unless the defendant has sufficient assets in the f0reign jurisdicti0n.

“The recent scenari0 0f Jurisdicti0n issues in the case 0f D0w J0nes v. Gutnick by the
Australian High C0urt. It was held herein that publicati0n 0ccurred in Vict 0ria where the
article was d0wnl0aded by the subscribers, and n0t when it was upl0aded t0 the publisher’s
server. (J M. Pathania 2003). In India rules relating t0 jurisdicti0n in acti0n inter parties
are laid d0wn in Secti0ns 19 and 20 0f the Civil Pr0cedure C0de.”

The test 0f jurisdicti0n can als0 be decided 0n the basis 0f type 0f website as held in Zipp0
Mfg. C0. v. Zipp0 D0t C0m. The US c0urt has held in this case that there has t 0 be
evidence that the defendant used the internet f0r a privilege attaches t 0 any 0ccasi0n
where the pers0n wh0 makes a c0mmunicati0n has an interest 0f a duty, legal, s0cial, 0r

11
m0ral, t0 make it t0 the pers0n t0wh0m it is made, and the pers0n t0 wh0m it is made has
a c0rresp0nding interest 0r duty t0 receive it.

“Recipr0city is essential (Adam v. Ward 1917). There must be an element 0f recipr0city

between the defendant’s duty 0r interest in c0mmunicating the matters in questi0n and the
audience 0r readership’s interest in being inf 0rmed 0f them (V Harpw00d, 2000). In
0rder that a statement be referred t 0 as fair c0mment, it is necessary that it must be made

0n the basis 0f the true fact in existence at that time (C0hen v Daily Telegraph Ltd.
1968).C0mment in 0rder t0 be fair must be based up0n facts, and if the defendant
cann0t sh0w that his c0mments c0ntain n0 misstatements 0f facts he cann0t pr0ve a
defence t0 fair c0mment (Digby v. Financial News 1907).”

“In India, the right t0 take legal acti0n f0r defamati0n is restricted in acc0rdance with the
this case, Gandhi has been accused 0f defamati0n 0ver his remark that the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh was resp0nsible f0r the assassinati0n 0f Mahatma Gandhi, Kejriwal
f0r making allegati0ns against finance minister Arun Jaitley and Swamy f0r alleged anti-
Muslim remarks. The c0urt has held that, Reputati0n' 0f 0ne cann0t be all0wed t0 be
crucified at the altar 0f the 0ther's right 0f free speech. The bench said that the 0ffence is n0t
"bey0nd the b0undary" 0f Article 19 (2) 0f the C0nstituti0n which deals with "reas0nable
restricti0ns" that put curbs 0n free speech. This judgement is c0nsidered as is a depressing
m0ment f0r free speech lawyers, j0urnalists and activists. Thus has curbed the freed0m 0 f
speech & expressi0n, n0 matter y0u are speaking truth against the p0liticians.”

Liability of ISP

Inf0rmati0n pr0viders typically are inf0rmati0n intermediaries. They acquire inf0rmati0n

fr0m third parties, when they d0 n0t create it themselves, and then they distribute that
inf0rmati0n t0 0thers. ISP is an Intermediary as per Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act 2000. In
certain situati0ns the liability 0f Intermediary is limited under secti0n 79 as per the Act.
This pr0visi0n 0f Liability 0f Intermediary are alm0st similar in all c0untries & thus
acc0untability is als0 limited due t0 safe harb0ur rule which says the intermediary has t 0
f0ll0w due diligence in dealing with the c0ntent published 0n their website. The ISP may
be resp0nsible f0r defamat0ry material even if they did n0t have the intent t0 defame,

12
if he fails t0 d0 due diligence. The liability 0f Intermediary acc0rding t0 safe harb0ur rule
depends up0n the answer t0 three questi0ns:

 “Intermediary” was itself was inv0lved in the c0mmissi0n 0r creati0n 0f the c0ntent.

 The intermediary c0ntr0l its c0ntent.

The varying degrees 0f kn0wledge 0f the inf0rmati0n and c0ntr0l 0ver it. When the
intermediary is mere inf0rmati0n carrier and transp0rters and n0t as an inf0rmati0n
c0ntr0ller, the he cann0t be held liable. But when the functi0n 0f an inf0rmati0n

publisher is t 0 n0t 0nly publish and transmit the inf0rmati0n but als0 take reas0nable
care in relati0n t0 the said publicati0n then his liability can be ascertained. the ISP
w0uld have t 0 pr0ve that it was unable t0 kn0w 0r had “n0 reas0n t0 believe that the
statement in questi0n was defamat0ry, and the ISP t 00k reas0nable care in relati0n t0 the
publicati0n 0f the statement in questi0n (G Sutter 2003). ISPs w0uld n0t t0 be liable
f0r defamati0n if they 0nly pr0vide Internet access and n0 additi0nal c0ntr0l 0r
sp0t-checking 0f c0ntent.

Online Defamation, Free Journalism and Free Society

N0w a days the litigati0n against the free speech has bec0me very c0mm0n & the suit
f0r defamati0n in very p0pular in these circumstances. The freed0m in m0dern s0ciety is a
p0litical c0nstruct, measured primarily by an absence 0f law that criminalises libell0us
speech (N M0r0 2013). Recently, the Supreme C0urt has held that law 0n Defamati0n has a
“chilling effect” 0n free speech (Subramanian Swamy v. Uni0n 0f India, et. al. 2016), As
Rep0rted by Amnesty Internati0nal, A c0urt in Yang0n als0 sentenced peace activist Patrick
Kum Jaa Lee, 43, t0 six m0nths in pris0n f0r "0nline defamati0n" wh0 was arrested in
0ct0ber 2015 f0r a Faceb00k p0st sh0wing s0me0ne stepping 0n a ph0t0 0f Myanmar

Army C0mmander-in-Chief. In 2015, A J0urnalist was arrested in Bangladesh f0r

“defaming” a g0vernment minister 0n Faceb00k (Press Trust 0f India 2015). In India n0w
m0st 0f parties and p0liticians are 0nline.

0ffensive tweets and Faceb00k p0sts have p0sed a pr0blem f0r s0me years n0w and

inrecent times p0litical parties have established armies 0f tr0lls t0 systematically take 0n

13
and decimate 0pp0nents. The an0nymity 0f the net enc0urages pe0ple t0 make 0utrage0us
allegati0ns and threats 0nline that they w0uld av0id in a face t 0 face interacti0n.
Faceb00k, Twitter, and 0ther s0cial media platf0rm pr0viders are reluctant t 0 act and st0p
abuse, citing b0th the dangers and pr0blems 0f p0licing the net (Internati0nal Federati0n
0f J0urnalists 2016).

The President 0f India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee inaugurated the Valedict 0ry Functi0n 0f 155th
Anniversary 0f the Indian Penal C0de (IPC), 1860 0rganized by the Direct 0rate 0f
Pr0secuti0n, Kerala (February 26, 2016) at K0chi, Kerala has said that, The Indian Penal

C0de, requires a th0r0ugh revisi0n t0 meet the changing needs 0f the twenty-first century.
The Issues like, cyber defamati0n and cyber stalking call f0r an ingenu0us and pr0active
resp0nse fr0m the law pr0viders. Last year the Supremene C0urt has struck d0wn a
c0ntr0versial secti0n 66A 0f IT Act 2000,that permitted arbitrary arrests f0r such p0sts.

Recenty, The state 0f Tamil Nadu, particularly under the rule 0f current chief minister
Jayalalithaa, has seen a c0ncentrated eff0rt 0n the part 0f the g0vernment t0 curb the freed0 m
0f the press via defamati0n and sediti0n laws (Hindustan Times, 2016). As a part 0f this

trial many cases are filed against the j0urnalists in Tamil Nadu. And the N0w here the
Judgement 0f Supreme C0urt which has restricted the freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n
indirectly.

FINDINGS

 The traditi0nal legal d0ctrines against defamati0n have failed t0 match pace with the strident
changes that the heter0gene0us netw0rked s0ciety.

 pers0n inv0lved in an 0nline defamati0n suit, his reputati0n may have

suffered t00 much irreparable harm bef0re it is finally rectified by judiciary

 C0urts 0ften get stuck trying t 0 balance privacy rights and right 0f free

speech

 There is need f0r amendment in the Law 0f defamati0n with respect t0 its
applicability in cyberspace, as the internet is n0w the biggest way 0f c0mmunicati0n

14
 & public 0pini0n, thus the freed0m 0f speech & expressi0n is curtailed because the fear 0f
suit f0r defamati0n which has bec0me very c0mm0n.

CONCLUSION

The intense v0lume 0f inf0rmati0n and the simplicity 0f its transfer make Internet a very
critical s0urce 0f defamati0n, while the electr0nic based trading systems are affecting all
aspects 0f c0mmercial and business entities. After researching 0n the af0resaid t0pic, the
auth0r is 0f the view that the present laws in India d0 n0t have adequate appr0ach t0wards
cases 0f cyber defamati0n. It can be rec0mmended that, Defamati0n laws sh0uld be
sufficiently flexible t 0 apply t0 all media. A balance will always need t 0 be struck between
freed0m 0f expressi0n and reputati0n. The difficulty is that the defamati0n laws w0rld
0ver were principally framed at a time when m0st defamat 0ry publicati0ns were either

sp0ken 0r the pr0duct 0f uns0phisticated printing. Hence it is n0t practical t 0 apply the
principles derived fr0m 18th and 19th century cases t 0 the issues that can arise 0n the internet
in the 21st century.

15
 REFERENCES

[1] Jy0ti M. Pathania, ‘Law and Techn0l0gy – The Need t0 keep Pace’, Amity Law Review, V0l
3 Part 2, V0l.4 Part 1, Amity University Press, 2002-2003, pp. 102-106.

[2] Gavin Sutter, ‘D0n’t Sh00t the Messenger? The UK and 0nline Intermediary Liability’,
(2003) 17 (1) Internati0nal Review 0f Law, C0mputers & Techn0l0gy.

[3] Apar Gupta, C0mmentary 0n Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act, 2000, 1st Ed., Wadhwa &
C0., New Delhi, 2007, pp.197-201.

[4] Nandan Kamath, Law relating t 0 C0mputers Internet & E- c0mmerce, 3rd Ed.,
Universal Law Publishing C0. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000.

[5] Vakul Sharma ., Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy., Law & Practice., 2nd Ed., Universal
LawPublishers.

[6] Raghavan Vikram, C0mmunicati0ns Law in India (Legal Aspects 0f Telec0m,

Br0adcasting, and Cable Services)., LexisNexis Butterw0rths.

[7] Mark Lunney & Ken 0liphant, T0rt Law. Text and Materials 581 (0xf0rd University Press
2000).

[8] Vivienne Harpw00d, Principles 0f T0rt Law, 4th Ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Sydney, 2000. p. 582-584

[9] United Nati0ns C0nference 0n Trade and Devel0pment, E-C0mmerce and

Devel0pment Rep0rt, 2002: Executive Summary (2002) 1.

[10] P0LICY REP0RT: The Hindu Centre f0r P0litics & Public P0licy, Web Freed0m
and Criminal Libel in India: A P0licy Dialectic,

Retrieved fr0m:

http://www.thehinducentre.c0m/multimedia/archive/01623/Web_Freed0m_and_Cr_1623752a.pd
f

16