This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Submitted to: Prof. Kanchan Submitted by: AnkushAtulTandon Class: 4 MAMC
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm. or . or by signs or by visible representations. or both. Explanation 4. or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling. or by signs or visible representation. in the estimation of others. may amount to defamation. except in the cases hereinafter excepted. Explanation 3. Meaning and explanation according to Indian Law IPC Section 499: Defamation As per the Indian Penal Code. •It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. Any person who makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person. •Publication of a substantially true report. lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person. to defame that person. or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm. is said. is said. •Any expression in good faith on the conduct or character of a public servant on a public question. Explanation 1. the reputation of such person. 1860. unless that imputation directly or indirectly. Explanation 2.Defamation Act In layman terms. •It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another person.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. DEFAMATION is -Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read. or fine. makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm. and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. under section 499. Some defences: Truth published for public interest is the best defence.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically. if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation. Chapter 21 of Defamation. either spoken or intended to be read. to defame that person. provided it is made in good faith by person for protection of his or other‟s interests. defamation can be explained as follows: Definition: Defamation may be by words. Punishment: Section 500 of IPC prescribes imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years. the reputation of such person.
and respecting his character. This is defamation. intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. he never stole B's watch". or respecting the character of such person. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case. Second Exception-Public conduct of public servants. Explanation-A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice. as far as his character appears in that conduct. and no further. or of the result of any such proceedings. This is defamation. unless it fall within one of the exceptions. -It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question. in presiding or attending at such meeting.It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person. or respecting the conduct of any person as a party. This is defamation.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. Illustration It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever resepting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question. and no further. in forming or joining any society which invites the public support. witness or agent. Fourth Exception-Publication of reports of proceedings of courts. so far as his character appears in that conduct. (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. in any such case." A is within this exception if he says this in good faith. or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state. A points to Z. or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. civil or criminal. intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. and no farther. is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Illustrations (a) A says-"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest. First Exception-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. which has been decided by a Court of Justice.lowers the credit of that person. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch.. in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. Fifth Exception-Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice. Illustrations (a) A says-"Z is an honest man. unless it fall within one of the exceptions. if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question. and no further. unless it fall within one of the exceptions. inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness. or respecting his character. intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. Third Exception-Conduct of any person touching any public question. so far as his character appears in that conduct. .
Sixth Exception-Merits of public performance. inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book. to Z's master. a servant. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness. (e) But if A says-"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent. a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashierare within this exception. submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public. if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z. a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders. whose authority is derived from a parent. to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. a child. Illustrations (a) A person who publishes a book. is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness. A is not within this exception. (c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage. inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book. or of an officer of the Court.if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z. and no further. Z must be a weak man. submits that book to the judgment of the public." A is not within this exception. submits that speech to the judgment of the public." A is within the exception. inasmuch as the opinion which expresses of Z's character.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public. if he says this in good faith. for he is a weak man and a libertine. either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate. (b) A person who makes a speech in public. Eighth Exception-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. Z's book is indecent. Explanation-A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children. Z must be a man of impure mind.(b) But if A says-"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity". or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance. to Z's father-A is within this exception.-It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority. and no farther. Ninth Exception-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests. a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service. a schoolmaster. (d) A says of a book published by Z-"Z's book is foolish. censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils.-It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Seventh Exception-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that .
A is within the exception. Chapter 21 of Defamation. who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money. a Magistrate. or for the public good. a shopkeeper. A maker of imputation without publication is not liable to be punished under that section. for I have no opinion of his honesty. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Compoundable by the person defamed. Para II Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years." A is within the exception. Here. casts an imputation on the character of Z. (b) A.the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it. to one person against another. or 501 or 502 or 504 of the Code merely because some news item or article is published attributing certain utterances to that person . IPC Section 500: Punishment for Defamation As per the Indian Penal Code. or of any other person. Imputation without publication In section 499 the words “makes or publishes any imputation” should be interpreted as words supplementing to each other.Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. COMMENTS A person cannot be said to have committed an offence under section 500. says to B. Punishment for defamation is . provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed. or for the public good. in making a report to his own superior officer. or of some person in whom that person is interested. It is not defamation to convey a caution. or with both. if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. or fine. and for the public good. under section 500. Illustrations (a) A. if the imputation is made in good faith. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the person defamed with the permission of the court. in good faith. 1860. or with fine. Tenth Exception-Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years. or fine.
or fine.Whoever prints or engraves any matter. shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. knowing that it contains such matter. . or with fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years. under section 501. under section 502. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Compoundable by the person defamed. or fine. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. or with both. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. Chapter 21 of Defamation. shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. 1860. Para II Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years. sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter . or with fine. IPC Section 502: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter As per the Indian Penal Code. knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person.IPC Section 501: Printing or engraving matter known to be Defamatory As per the Indian Penal Code. or fine. or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory .Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. or fine. 1860. Chapter 21 of Defamation. or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Compoundable by the person defamed. Para II Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years.
"The court has prima facie found a case of defamation against Rajasekhar and Jeevitha after recording the statement of my client (Aravind) and today ordered summons on the actor couple asking them to appear before the court on February 9. A summon has been issued on Friday by a local court to Telugu film actor Rajasekhar and his wife Jeevitha in a defamation case. Shah Rukh Khan and Farah Khan in a defamation case against Manoj Kumar ShahRukh Khan is in big trouble for his superhit movie Om Shanti Om.Aravind's counsel S MallaRao claimed that under section 500."Rao explained. Not just this but in another scene Shah Rukh Khan Gives a mock thank you speech in a drunken state and later says he‟s Manoj Kumar. Om Shanti Om. There were many actors in the movie who were made fun of but they all took it very lightly but looks like ManojJi has taken this matter very seriously. film producer and brother-in-law of actor/politician Chiranjeevi.The actor‟s plea states that he was mentally traumatized by seeing a spoof of him entering a premiere show in the move and the way the character is stopped by the guards and “even beated with a stick”. Legendary actor. 2. They are criminals‟. He was shown being beaten up by the police outside a theatre is done in bad taste in the movie which made Manoj Kumar Ji very angry. Manoj Kumar has filed a case in the court for stalling the television premier of the last year‟s biggest blockbuster and SRK starrer. Manoj Kumar told the CNN-IBN that „People who make such movies do not know the meaning of respect and decency. He said that he will sue Shah Rukh and Farah Khan for what he alleges is a conspiracy to humiliate and ridicule him. All these things made Manoj Kumar very angry and he is very upset with Farah Khan. Aravind claimed that the couple and their follower HarikrishnaGoud made alleged remarks against Chiranjeevi's charitable trust and the blood bank run by it. which has caused him a mental trauma and humiliation. The Additional Chief Metropolitan court summoned the couple taking cognizance over the complaint filed against them by AlluAravind. He said that the allegations were completely false and are politically motivated.Manoj Kumar said in the plea that he was ridiculed by SRK and Farah Khan in OSO. Manoj Kumar may finally heave a sigh of relief after being awarded a permanent injunction order by Dindoshi session court on the clips and scenes from „Om Shanti Om‟ that caused . In the application Manoj Kumar also says that he is proud of himself as the “services he had rendered in the interests of the nation “due to which he was also famously known as “Bharat Kumar”by many.Defamation Cases 1. Telugu film actor Rajasekhar and wife Jeevitha in a defamation case against Chiranjeevi. He has threatened to sue Shah Rukh Khan for aping him.They have been asked to appear before the court on Feb 9. a prime facia case can be made and issued the summons. He busted out at the Director by saying that „This is not film making‟ Then. the Veteran actor Manoj Kumar is very unhappy with the way his character has been portrayed in the movie. Well.
Now we are planning for a criminal case. print. is said to be still unsatisfied with the duo. but they haven‟t kept their word. It was Yash‟s responsibility since he brought them over. The petitioners have challenged the validity of IPC Sections 499 (defamation). “We have won the case as the court has ordered a permanent injunction on the scenes which mock the actor. but Manoj Kumar is not yet satisfied as he is planning to file a criminal suit against Farah Khan and Shah Rukh khan for lampooning his image. 3. which had been published in Tamil bi-weekly 'Nakkheeran' was already in public domain with both the print and TV media 'exhaustively' reporting on it and the subsequent events and incidents. I called him yesterday and he said he was in London. The actor was told that the scene making fun of him would be deleted from the movie. but Manoj Kumar is left feeling deceived with the promise not fulfilled. for his tiff with SRK and Farah Khan for enacting him in their movie. “Om Shanti Om”. It was a delightful atmosphere. Jayalalithaa in a defamation case against a leading national daily The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings before a sessions judge in Chennai in the defamation complaint filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa against a leading national daily over publication of a report on her food habits. who was in news after over a decade. They also challenged a government order of January 13 authorising the city public prosecutor to file the complaint against them for authoring and publishing the news item in the newspaper in January. SRK and Gauri Khan and Sony Entertainment Television to delete the scenes on Manoj Kumar from the film before its televised premiere. movies or any other medium is a criminal offence.him mental trauma. has ordered the producers. 500 (Punishment for defamation) and 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) and prayed the court to declare them as unconstitutional as they "criminalised" the speech and expression made by a newspaper or other media which faithfully reports a news item or event.” says the actor upset with the director.” He said: “We will be filing the case against the makers of the movie Monday under sections 499 and 500 which says defaming a person advertently either through words.R Mahajan. Manoj Kumar advocate. I made them feel comfortable and didn‟t even give them a chance to apologize. They said that portion would be deleted. “Yash Chopra did come to my place with Shahrukh and others. Justice S Rajeswaran dispensed with their personal appearance before the principal sessions judge and ordered notice. Ashok Saraogi said. Passing the interim orders on petitions filed by then Editor-in-Chief of 'The Hindu' N Ram and reporter B Kolappan. Manoj Kumar. The yesteryear super star also blames Yash Chopra for not sticking up to his word. .” City Civil Court Judge D. The petitioners submitted that the news item reproduced in the daily.
'Nakkheeran' on January 7 had faced the wrath of irate AIADMK supporters who attacked its office and burnt copies over publication of the report about Jayalalithaa's eating habits.'The Hindu' had reported the same factually. . accurately and truthfully. without any intention to malign or defame the chief minister as alleged by the city public prosecutor. they submitted.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.