Case Analysis

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra

(Suit No. 1279/2001, District Court of Delhi) (CYBER DEFAMATION)

NAME :- AVISHI RAJ

ENROLL :- 22617703819
SUBJECT :- LAW AND TECH
SEM&SEC :- VII-E
Introduction
• This case gave birth to a new term ‘cyber defamation’ in the Indian law as it was
the first case of cyber defamation in India, so it holds a lot of significance.
• The term ‘Cyber Defamation’ basically means publishing of false statement about
an individual in cyberspace that can injure or demean the reputation of that
individual. In India, defamation can be contemplated as both civil and criminal
offence, and thus legal remedies are provided to the victims by the Indian
judiciary system.
• What do we understand by the term “Defamation”?
• Defamation can be understood as the wrongful and intentional publication of
something either in the written or oral form about a person to harm his reputation
in the society. For a statement to be considered as defamatory, the following
essential elements must be fulfilled.
• There must be the publication of the defamatory statement, which means coming to the knowledge of a third party.
• The statement must refer only to the plaintiff
• The statement must be defamatory in nature.

Types of Defamation
• Defamation can be bifurcated into two categories that are –
• Libel – A statement that is defamatory and is published in a written form.
• Slander – A defamatory statement spoken that means a verbal form of defamation.

• Cyber Defamation
• Cyber defamation is a new concept but the traditional definition of defamation is injury
caused to the reputation of a person in the eyes of a third person, and this injury can be done
by verbal or written communication or through signs and visible representations. The
statement must refer to the plaintiff, and the intention must be to lower the reputation of the
person against whom the statement has been made. On the other hand, Cyber defamation
involves defaming a person through a new and far more effective method such as the use of
modern Electronic devices. It refers to the publishing of defamatory material against any
person in cyberspace or with the help of computers or the Internet. If a person publishes any
kind of defamatory statement against any other person on a website or sends E-mails
containing defamatory material to that person to whom the statement has been made would
 EVOLUTION OF CYBER DEFAMATION
• Defamation has existed since a long time the only difference is that with the changing time
the ways of doing has changed a lot.With the development of the technology various new
ways of defamation has evolved. Now the flow of data has become much more effective and
fast with the development of internet.Cyber defamation evolved write from the evolution of
cyber age in early 1990s from the various laws in almost all the countries have been made
considering the widening scope of cyber defamation.
• Legal provisions:-
• Liability in Cyber Defamation
• In India, a person can be made liable for defamation both under civil and criminal law.
1. Indian Penal Code
• Section 499 of Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or
by signs and visual representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending
to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such
person is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted to defame that person.”
• Section 500 of IPC provides for punishment wherein “any person held liable under section 499 will be
punishable with imprisonment of two years or fine or both.”
• Section 469 deals with forgery. If anyone creates a false document or fake account by which it harms the
reputation of a person. The punishment of this offence can extend up to 3 years and fine.
• Section 503 of IPC deals with the offence of criminal intimidation by use of electronic means to damage
one’s reputation in society.
 Information Technology Act, 2000

• Section 66A, Information Technology Act,2000 – This law has been struck down
by Supreme Court in the year 2015. The section defined punishment for sending
‘offensive’ messages through a computer, mobile or tablet. Since the government
did not clarify the word ‘offensive’. The government started using it as a tool to
repress freedom of speech. In 2015, the whole section was quashed by the
Supreme Court.
• If a person has been defamed in cyberspace, he can make a complaint to the cyber
crime investigation cell. It is a unit of the Crime Investigation Department.
Facts:-
Plaintiff No. 1 company has filed a suit alongwith plaintiff No.2 its Managing Director giving the history of the company and the
business of the company. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the last one year from the date of filing of plaint, plaintiff has
been receiving various emails, received from different email addresses, have purportedly been sent by the same person.
A perusal of the said emails show that they are distinctly obscene, vulgar, filthy, abusive, intimidating, embarrassing, humiliating
and defamatory. A complaint was made regarding the obscene email dated 7.5.2000 and 30.5.2000 on checking these emails
Indiatimes.com blocked the email addresses of the person who had sent the emails in question but looking into the nature of
emails being received which are defamatory plaintiff took the help of a private computer expert and could trace one of the email
dated 2.4.2001. Investigations further revealed that the concerned email had been originated from Dishnet Cybercafé, Connaught
Circus, New Delhi and as per the report of the expert and during enquiries by the expert after seeing the group photograph having
the photograph of defendant. The defendant was identified by the Cybercafé Attendant that he was the same person who has send
the email in question.
It is submitted that plaintiff no.2 is a very respectable and educated man and he has arisen the ladder of his professional carrier
because of his ability qualifications and hard work and was finally appointed as Managing Director and his tenure has brought
laurel to the company of which plaintiff. no.2 was made Managing Director. He is income tax payee and honest citizen of India.
The emails resulted into defamation of the plaintiff in the eyes of people who hold him in high esteem. Primarily the area of
circulation involves the higher officials of the different subsidiaries of SMC worldwide located in different countries and they
have been sent through sales department specially to Australia to defame him among the person where he was known as he has
worked there and from there forwarded to the Managing Director
The aim and clear intention and Mens Rea to defame the plaintiffs especially the plaintiff No.2 to malign his impeccable
reputation in the eyes of these very important people who hold him in high regard as these emails have been sent to group
companies Managing Directors only through the Group Companies Managing Directors and these have been sent to poison the
mind of all those who take decisions on behalf of the company international subsidiaries of same companies in meetings once in
year or once by yearly being the core members of international body which take all vital decisions of plaintiff No.1 and its interest
worldwide. All these people are deliberately and malafidely sent copies of email to poison their mind and to destroy professional
career opportunities and to destabilize the plaintiff. Plaintiff has come to acquire copy of all these emails since these have been
forwarded to the plaintiff by the receiver mentioned above. All these emails have been generated from defendant who despite
effort to see the reason did not improve. Regarding the same a police complaint was filed on 11.5.2001 which is pending
proceeding under the criminal jurisdiction to which it pertains. On 11.5.2001 the plaintiff terminated the services of defendant on
account of his act and violation of his appointment letter and on account of sending the emails as mentioned above and thereafter
he become very vengeful and trying to settle scores by sending emails to harm the reputation of plaintiff no. 1 and 2 and to defame
them besides the other consequences. Hence present suit has been filed seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant.
 ISSUES RAISED:
• 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunctions as prayed in the prayer clause of the plaintiff?
• Onus to prove this question was on the complainant. No.1 and 2 examining numerous witnesses to prove the existence of cause
of action. As far as a person's legal right is concerned, it cannot rely on a person's status especially when no claims for damages
are made. Status of a person in a suit for defamation will determine the quantum of damages but as far as the existence of right
is concerned, status of person is immaterial if the damages are not asked for, since it may help to determine the quantum of
damages. As far as existence of legal right is concerned it is available to one and all to live a life of honorable person and no
other person, irrespective of his relations or otherwise has the right to defame others either by raising allegations which are
slanderous or defamatory per-se before the facts relating to cause of action pertaining to defamation are enumerated, it is
required that the defamatory facts allegations be circulated and brought to the public domain.
• 2. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands?
• It is submitted that since even if the plaintiff has a legal right and has been in a position to establish on record the cause
of action by producing the facts alleging and producing the facts giving rise to violation of his legal right but if he has not
come to the court with clean hands he is not entitled to injunction so the injunction remedy has become the statutory
remedy under the Specific Relief Act but still a remedy which cannot be availed even if the legal right and the cause of
action has been proved if the party claiming the same is guilty of not coming to the court with clean hands. Pleading to
that effect are not there except a general objection that the plaintiffs has not come to the court with clean hands. Mr.
Manish Gandhi, Adv. presently representing the defendant has very fairly conceded that there are no specific pleadings as
to why the defendant is saying that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands except the general objection
based on factors which will determine whether the plaintiff has any cause of action or not. The only reason it can be said
to be having the intense battle between the corporate manager and ex-employee to teach him the lesson but no such
allegations are there though orally stated on record. Hence this issue is decided as having become infructus.
3. Relief
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.

RULE OF LAW WHICH APPLIES:

Section 65B - Admissibility of electronic records - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also
a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in
question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as
evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

STATING THE APPLICATION OF RULE OF LAW WHICH APPLIES:

After hearing detailed arguments of Counsel for Plaintiff, Hon'ble Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an exparte
ad interim injunction observing that a prima facie case had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the Delhi
High Court restrained the defendant from sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating and abusive
emails either to the plaintiffs or to its sister subsidiaries all over the world including their Managing Directors and
their Sales and Marketing departments. Further, Hon'ble Judge also restrained the defendant from publishing,
transmitting or causing to be published any information in the actual world as also in cyberspace which is
derogatory or defamatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION:
• In some cases, cyber defamation can have far-reaching effects on the
organizations in the corporate world. However, laws are in place to deal with
cyber defamation and electronic records admissibility as evidence has been eased.
If the plaintiff may claim defamation has happened, then it is the defendant's duty
to claim he was innocent. Further there are also Cyber Crime Investigation Cells
to deal with Cyber Crimes in India.