1.

Justification by Truth –
- If the alleged defamatory statement is true – then it’s a complete defence
- For example, Mr. A has AIDS – Mr. B goes around everywhere and tells Mr. A has AIDS – Other
friends of A start disassociating with him – This is not defamation because the statement of fact
is true and not false. - But this may be violation of Mr. A’s constitutional right to privacy or
interest of confidentiality, but not the right to reputation.
- But if Mr. A did not have AIDS in reality in the above case, then B’s statements would amount to
slander.
- Further, it is sufficient that the statement becomes true only at a later stage for this defense to
succeed. For example, you made a statement about Rahul Gandhi, based on some vague
suspicion, that he is involved in 10,000 crores scam. RaGa files a defamation suit against you. But
just before the trial started before the courts, the statement that you made becomes true
because the CBI released a report regarding the scam that clearly indicated RaGa’s role in it.
Then, you can successfully raise the defense to get rid of liability even if the statement was not
true at the time you made it!
- Furthermore, it is not necessary that every minute detail of the statements you make must be
true; it is sufficient if your statement is substantially true. Certain errors in the facts can be
pardoned. For example, refer relevant pages of the Ratanlal book.
- However, if the defendant has grossly exaggerated the truth, this defense may not succeed.

1. Fair and Bona fide comment –

- So, there is a difference between “statements of fact” and “value statements / opinions /
comment”
- This defence relates to the latter alone and not statement of facts.
- Value statements cannot be verified as they are not facts. That is why the justification of truth
defence applies to statements of facts and this defence of fair comment applies to value
statements.
- An example - A says that “the book published by Z is indecent, therefore Z must be a man of
impure mind”. So, this is a value statement or opinion based on some fact. And this may fall
under the ambit of ‘fair and bonafide comment’.
- For this defence to be raised successfully, the comment must have been made on the basis of
true facts. It is indispensable.
- But if A says “I am not surprised that Z’s book is indecent because he is a man of impure mind”.
This statement does not fall under the ambit of ‘fair and bonafide comment’ defence because he
is saying that Z is a man of impure mind as a fact and not as an opinion based on some credible
facts.
- Usually, this defence is raised by journalists or others who make opinions, comments, and
criticisms about public officials, public figures etc.
- This defence is necessary to ensure that honest and fair opinions about issues relating to public
interest are not prevented from reaching everyone in the society.
- However, as the R.Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu case told us, comments that amount to
personal attacks or those comments arising out of personal animosity may not be covered
under this defence.
2. There is another important defence – “Privilege”. Just read briefly about this defence from the
book. Quite easy.