BA.LLB(HONS.

) SEMESTER-2
MOOT COURT(CLINICAL)
TOPIC- DEFAMATION

SUBMITTED TO- Adv. Aziz Kamal Shukla

NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

SUBMITTED BY- AKSHAT MISHRA

A062
BA.LLB FIRST YEAR
 INTRODUCTION

Imagine being on a beach and building a huge castle of sand and then suddenly
there comes a tide that swallows your hours and hours of labor and hard work.
Defamation is just like that wave. A person invests a lifetime of effort to rise in
the estimation of the society and even one mischievous gossip may destroy it in
minutes. It may not only destroy a person’s social standing but also destroy his
or her personal and professional life. Human beings are proud animals and they
may prefer death to dishonor. For this reason, defamation is not only held as a
tort but also punishable as a crime.
In this research paper, I will lay emphasis on civil aspects of defamation, the
essentials of defamation and analyze cases to have a better understanding of the
topic.

2
 CONCEPT OF DEFAMATION

A human being besides his/her physical body also has a subtle body, a
personality. A part of the personality is reputation. When you are in a room with
a group of people and you leave, you leave something of a shadow behind. That
shadow is what people talk of when you are not there. This collective opinion
makes a subtle body- a subtle unphysical you- something called reputation. A
good reputation can do wonders for you, and similarly a bad reputation can be
ruinous. Where the reputation is slurred because of naughty and untrue
statements, the shift is from good to bad and the tort of defamation occurs.
Kinds of Defamation-
1. SLANDER- Slander refers to the transitory or fleeting form of defamation
where the defamatory mark or mode is temporary and is not an endearing
slur. For example, in a room where A, B and C are present, A says
something which lowers the reputation of B in presence of C, then A is said
to have slandered B.
2. LIBEL- Libel refers to a permanent form of defamation where defamation is
rendered in a lasting form. For example, when it is done in written words as
in poster or a newspaper, is etched on a wall, a cartoon in a magazine, a
defamatory statue or plaque is erected or even when speech is rendered in a
permanent form like in a recording or a motion picture. Libel is considered
to be far more serious than slander as it persists in human memory and has a
more lasting and therefore more harmful effect on one's reputation.
Originally the rule of slander was that in cases of slander, damage would
have to be proved but in libel it need not be proved, it was presumed
because of the permanent nature.

3
 ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION

1. Defamatory Instance: The first essential of defamation is that there

should be something false said or done which is capable of defaming
someone.
2. Publication: Reputation is an opinion that that others hold of you and
not what you hold of yourself. Thus, if someone says something to you
and you find it offensive, it is not defamation. A third person must be
acquainted with the defamatory line, that is, a person other than the one
defaming and the one sought to be defamed.
3. The statement must refer to the plaintiff: The defendant is nonetheless
responsible if the person to whom the statement was published may
reasonably conclude that the statement related to the plaintiff.

DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION

1. Reporting of Truth- Truth is a complete defense in the law of

torts even if the information was given out maliciously. Even if the
information is substantially correct with minor wrong details, the
defense in given.
2. Fair Comment- As members of the society, we have the right to
give opinions about things or people. Even where these opinions
are negative, but fair, the defense is given.
3. Privileges-
 ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE: Where a complete immunity is
given even if the remarks are fully defamatory. Example-
Parliamentary proceedings or Judicial testimonies.
 QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE: The qualified privilege defense
allows someone in a position of authority or trust to make,
communicate, or report remarks that would be considered
slander or libel if uttered by someone else.
DEBJYOTI DAS, UNTWISTING TORTS 133(POSSIBLE EDUCATION
2018)
Legalserviceindia.com. 2021. Defamation in Law of Torts: Meaning, essentials and defences. [online] Available
at: <https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-207-defamation-in-law-of-torts-meaning-essentials-and-
defences.html> [Accessed 15 December 2021].

4
CASE 1- D.P Choudhary & Ors. v. Kumari Manjulata [AIR
1997, Raj 170]

FACTS- Kumari Manjulata was a 17-year-old girl who lived with her
family. Her family had a good education. Manjulata was a B.A.
student herself. Nirmal Devi, her mother, has an M.A. and a B.Ed.
Her father, Mohan Singh, was a Senior Teacher with degrees in M.A.,
M.Com., and M.Ed. Her brother was a university student. As a result,
it was clear that Manjulatha came from a prestigious and well-
educated family. About the 18.12.1977, there was a fake news
publication with unfavorable remarks on Kumari Manjulata in the
daily newspaper Dainik Navjyothi, claiming that she had eloped with
her lover Kamlesh when she stepped out of her house for the purpose
of attending additional lessons at her college.
ISSUES-
1. Is the news item that was published true or false?
2. Was it the intention of the news piece to ruin Kumari
Manjulata's name?
3. Was the lower court correct in awarding 10,000 in damages?
ARGUMENTS-
 Defendant   appellants claimed that they do not know the
plaintiff personally and that the material was obtained from the
police station by their reporter. The plaintiff respondent was not
intended to be defamed. As a result, they had no malicious
intent to libel the plaintiff respondent.
 They further claimed that the information they received was
based on facts and that the plaintiff respondent's mother
corroborated it. She was not, however, cross-examined. As a
result, the veracity of the information could not be confirmed.
 They added that they forwarded the report for publishing in the
paper with the hope of reuniting Manjulata with her parents. The

5
 judge thought this was strange because no one had ever
requested in her family to do so.
 The information was allegedly obtained from police constable
Ramesh Chandra, although even he has yet to appear in court.
As a result, there is no record of who provided the police with
the information.
 There was no mention of any challan handed to Kamlesh or any
action taken against him in the record.
 There was no written evidence in any register to produce in
court.
 The court was presented with false information on Majulata's
treatment and medications.
 The material published in the press was untrue, according to
many witnesses from the Plaintiff respondents' side.
 The Defendant Appellants have not presented any such precise
evidence.
 Kumari Manjulata claims that her family's reputation has
suffered as a result of the news article's publication, and that her
marriage prospects have dwindled. The evidence presented by
her witnesses confirmed this.

D.P Choudhary & Ors. v. Kumari Manjulata, AIR 1997 RAJ 170.
6
JUDGEMENT-
This decision is a review of a district judge's decision. Though the
defendant has in reality harmed the plaintiff's reputation, even if he
did not intend to do so and had no such intention in mind when he
wrote or said the remarks, he is responsible. Every man must be
assumed to be aware of and intending the natural and expected
repercussions of his actions. Even if the remarks were published
mistakenly or unwittingly, they are actionable if they are untrue and
defamatory. It was established throughout the court hearing that the
material released about the plaintiff was untrue. From the respondent's
perspective, there is no indication or evidence that the information is
accurate. As a result, the plaintiff's and her family's reputations were
harmed as a result of the false story.
The basic goal of defamation law is to safeguard an individual's
reputation. So, even though the respondent had no intention of
harming plaintiff's reputation, acted in good faith, and believes the
information to be factual, they are nonetheless responsible because the
privilege defense was not asserted.

Manjulata's social standing has suffered as a result of the news item.

Her family had a lot of trouble locating her marriage proposals as a
result of the false story. Because the remarks published were proven
to be untrue and defamatory, general damages were inferred, and the
court determined that the 10,000 damages were correct.

7
ANALYSIS-
In human existence, reputation is important. It is one of the most
significant and valuable assets. As a result, any defamatory comment
regarding one's reputation might damage one's reputation in the eyes
of right-thinking individuals. Without valid justification, no one has
the right to spread any defamatory allegation about another person
that harms their reputation.
During a decade marked by an increase in the number of defamation
lawsuits, decisions like this one serve as a reminder to all media
publishers that false claims that defame someone's character can result
in severe penalties. The burden of evidence in any defamation lawsuit
is on the defendant to show that the remarks in question are not
untrue. The defendants were found liable because they were unable to
provide sufficient evidence to show that the news article was based on
facts. Furthermore, the plaintiff's reputation was severely harmed by
the news story in question. As a result, the monetary damages
awarded are not excessive.

8
CASE 2- Ramdhara and Anr. vs Mst. Phulwatibai on 23
February, 1967

ARGUMENTS-
 This is the second appeal, which stems from a defamation
lawsuit. The plaintiff claimed that the parties' relations were
strained, and that a disagreement had broken out a few days
before to the occurrence between Ayodhya Prasad, her son,
and Shivgovind, husband of Mst. Ramdhara (defendant 1),
and Moortlal, husband of Mst. Sushila (defendant 2).
Ayodhya Prasad went to the police station with Jagatram to
file a report about the altercation. Ayodhya Prasad's Mamiya
Susar (wife's maternal uncle) is Jagatram. The plaintiff came
across the first defendant on her way to bring her livestock
and buffalo four or five days after the event, while she was on
her way to bring her animals and buffalo. When the first
defendant saw her, he assaulted her in a filthy manner.
Defendant 2 also happened to be there and she associated
herself with the first defendant in those abuses and defamatory
imputations. The plaintiff's contention was that the imputation
against her chastity was made with a view to ridicule her and
lower her reputation. She claimed Rs. 150/- as general
damages. The suit was resisted. The trial Court dismissed the
suit holding that it was not proved that the defendant uttered
those words.
 The trial court's decision was overturned by the first appellate
court. The evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses,
Manahan The trial court's decision was overturned by the first
appellate court. The evidence of the plaintiff and her
witnesses, Manrakhan and Rameshwar Prasad, was found to
be sufficient to prove the plaintiff's case. The learned Judge
has gone over their evidence as well as the defendants'
evidence in great detail. He also pointed out where, in his
judgement, the trial court went wrong. He's also gone over the
factual points that have been presented to him. The factual
conclusion reached by the first appellate court is unassailable
9
 in the second appeal.  and Rameshwar Prasad, was found to be
sufficient to prove the plaintiff's case. The learned Judge has
gone over their evidence as well as the defendants' evidence in
great detail. He also pointed out where, in his judgement, the
trial court went wrong. He's also gone over the factual points
that have been presented to him. The factual conclusion
reached by the first appellate court is unassailable in the
second appeal.
 If the remarks were said by the defendants, it is alternatively
maintained that they amounted to ordinary abuses without
intending or transmitting their inherent meaning. The
obnoxious statements cannot be interpreted as implying that
the plaintiff had become Jagatram's mistress or had illegal
relations with him. Although simple vulgar insults and
vituperative epithets may injure a man's pride, they do not
impugn his reputation if they are intended as such and
understood by others who hear them.
 In this case, if the defendants had just spoken the term
"chhinal," It would have been concluded that the phrase did
not communicate its precise meaning, i.e., a lady of easy
virtue, but rather was merely a vulgar slur, which is usual in
villages when women dispute. Defamation does not include
mere vulgar abuse that does not seek to degrade a person's
estimation in the eyes of others or to bring him into obloquy,
scorn, or ridicule. In such a circumstance, the abuse is
repeated just to offend the feelings of the abused person, or as
an insult to his dignity or self-respect, without the abuser's
knowledge or without the abuser's natural purpose being
conveyed to others.
 The defendants' statements did not amount to simply vulgar
insults in this case. There was a clear inference made about
the plaintiff's chastity. The surrounding circumstances must
not be overlooked. She is a 45-year-old widow whose spouse
died some years ago. Jagatram is a close relative of hers, as
her daughter-in-law's maternal uncle. If it is implied that the
plaintiff is the keep of Jagatram or that she has had illegal
10
 relations with him in these circumstances, the remark is
unquestionably defamatory. When defamatory, meaning is the
only natural and clear interpretation, a language is defamatory
on the surface.
 At the end, the appellants believe that the damages awarded
are excessive. Because it was merely a verbal spat between
two rural ladies, minimal damages should have been granted.
Learned Counsel argues that the plaintiff be satisfied with a
modest loss of one rupee since she believed her reputation had
been harmed.
 The appeal has been partially granted. Only the amount of
damages is changed in the verdicts and decrees issued by the
lower courts. The plaintiff will be awarded Rs. 50 as general
damages against the defendants, as well as all costs incurred
during the case.
ANALYSIS-
According to me, the award granted of rupees 50 is justifiable.
Also, in my opinion the fact that the woman was of a village,
where fights among women like this are common, should have
been kept in mind in the first appeal itself.

Ramdhara and Anr v Mst. Phulwatibai, AIR 1970 CriLJ 286

CONCLUSION

11
Defamation is a tort that occurs when someone's reputation is
harmed. It is the act of endangering another's reputation by
making a false statement to a third party. Defamation is an
infringement on one's right to a good name. Defamation
legislation is meant to safeguard people's reputations from
unjustified attacks. In practise, it has the primary impact of
restricting free expression and shielding powerful individuals
from criticism. Defamation law allows people to sue those
who make false or malicious statements or publish them.
.

12