Tort
Uploaded by
astharawat665Tort
Uploaded by
astharawat665TORT-
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss
or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.[1] Tort
law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are
punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit
crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the
actions of others.[2][a] Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in
both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and
criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract
law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract.
Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed
regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
A tort is a harmful act that causes damages to another. Many tort cases involve simple
negligence, which means that the defendant failed to use the level of care that a
reasonable person would use in the same situation. For example, in the case of a car
accident caused by a distracted driver, the defendant (the driver) failed to drive in a
responsible and reasonable way, which resulted in the accident. In this case, the
plaintiff (the accident victim) would be eligible for personal injury damage
compensation. An intentional tort differs because the mental state of the person who
caused harm is “knowingly” or “purposefully.”
Types of torts
They are variety of torts been commited daily but can be divided in main 3 categories –
1. Negligent torts - Negligent torts, as their name suggests, are torts that are caused by
the negligence of the tortfeasor i.e., person who commits the tort.
2. Intentional torts - Intentional torts, also as their name suggests, are torts caused
intentionally by the tortfeasor.
3. Strict liability torts - Strict liability torts are torts where the law has determined that
some activities are so dangerous that an individual engaging in those activities is
liable for damages regardless of intent or negligence resulting in harm.
Kinds of Trespass to Person
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False Imprisonment
4. Defamation
5. Malicious Prosecution
6. Lawful Justifications
7. Damages
What does trespass really mean?
8. Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to
the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land. Generally, trespass to the person
consists of torts: assault, battery and false imprisonment.
9. There are three main wrongs which fall under the umbrella of trespass to the person: assault,
battery and false imprisonment. They are intentional torts, meaning they cannot be committed
by accident. Although these descriptions sound like they are crimes, and indeed do share their
names with some crimes, it is important to remember that these are civil wrongs and not
criminal wrongs. A person liable in tort for assault, battery or false imprisonment will not
face a sentence. Instead, they will be ordered to pay damages to their victim.
ASSAULT-
Assault is both treated as crime and a civil wrong that is tort. Generally, a person commits
criminal assault if he purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon
another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, he places another in
fear of imminent serious bodily injury, unreasonable fear.
Sec 351 of IPC - “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to
be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he
who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to
commit an assault.
Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses
may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or
preparations amount to an assault.”
Criminal proceeding for the act do not bar civil action.
An assault occurs when a person apprehends immediate and unlawful physical contact. In
other words, fearing that you are about to be physically attacked makes you the victim of an
assault. It is also necessary that an attack can actually take place. If an attack is impossible,
then despite a person’s apprehension of physical contact there can be no assault. So a person
waving a stick and chasing after another person who is driving away in a car would not be an
assault. It is also generally thought that words alone cannot constitute an assault, but if
accompanied by threatening behaviour the tort may have been committed.
Essentials of assault –
1. Intention to harm
2. Ability to carry out the harm
3. Knowledge of the threat
4. Apprehension or fear that something bad will happen
CASE-
Stephen v Myers (1830)
The claimant was chairing a meeting at a local parish. The defendant sat at the other end of
the table. The discussion became very heated. A motion was carried out by large majority
that defendant should be turned out of the meeting.
The defendant got out of his chair and told the claimant that he would ‘rather pull the
chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room’.
He then advanced on the claimant shaking his fist. Witnesses thought that the defendant’s
intent was to hit the claimant.
However, he was stopped by the churchwarden before he got near enough to strike.
The claimant sued the defendant for assault. The defendant argued that it was not an
assault because he had no power to carry out any threat. The court held that the
defendant’s words and actions would constitute an assault if the defendant had the
means to carry out his threat. This would be the case if the defendant was advancing in
a threatening manner such that his blow would have reached the claimant had he not
been stopped by a third-party.
The jury gave their verdict for the claimant, finding that the defendant had committed
an assault.
Tuberville v. Savage (1669)
A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “If it were not assize-time, I would not
take such language.” The justices of assize were in town.
Issues:
The question was as to whether laying a hand on a sword and stating “If it were not assize-
time, I would not take such language,” constituted an unlawful assault by placing another in
apprehension of immediate violence. The Court held that an assault requires both:
(1) the intention and
(2) the act of assault.
Accordingly, the Court held that the facts did not give rise to assault as the man merely
stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time.
It was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not
and did not intend to commit an assault.
Thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of assault, nor
imminent threat thereof.
A CASE OF ASSAULT?( ILLUSTRATION)
D points a gun at P. D knows that the gun is not loaded and has no intention of harming P.
However, P believes the gun is loaded, and believes that D is about to shoot him. D has
committed an Assault because he put P in reasonable apprehension of harmful contact, even
though D never intended to actually harm.
Battery
If the physical contact that is apprehended in an assault actually takes place, then the tort of
battery has been committed. It is not necessary for the physical contact to cause any injury or
permanent damage to the victim, or even be intended to do so. The only intention required is
that of making physical contact. It is also not necessary for the tortfeasor, that is, the
wrongdoer, to actually touch the victim, so battery may be committed by throwing stones at
someone or spitting on them.
spitting in the face;
throwing water over a person;
taking a person by the collar;
Causing a person to be medically examined against their will
ALL these serve as examples of Battery.
Cole v Turner (1704)
‘The least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow
passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently,
it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude
inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about the passage, to that degree as
may do hurt, is a battery.’
If any physical contact could constitute battery, or if there must be an element of
violence present. What mental states and actions constitute battery when one person
touches another?
A battery is a close-proximity violent or touch. A mild touch performed in close
proximity and without intent does not constitute a battery.
The courts will only go on to consider whether there has been an 'intentional' act if
there is a 'voluntary' act on the part of the defendant.
Voluntary here means that the defendant must consciously bring about the bodily
movement for which he is being held liable.
So, if a sleepwalker stepped on your face while you were lying on the floor he would
not be liable in battery as there would not be a voluntary act.
Similarly, if you are asleep on the back seat of a car and in your sleep, you push the
front seat forward, so that the driver is thrown into the steering wheel or runs into P
because he loses control of the car, neither will be successful in an action in battery
against you.
It goes without saying that if A takes B's hand forcibly and strikes C with it, B is not
liable because B has done no voluntary act.
In Gambriell v Caparelli (1975)
A Canadian judge expressed the view that ‘the distinction between assault and battery
had been blurred, and that when we now speak of an assault, it may include a battery.’
When is the act for the purposes of the tort battery said to be intentional?
If the act is deliberate or wilful, if the defendant 'meant to do it'," it will be regarded as
intentional, as when D punches P in the face with his fist because P has insulted him
or D takes a gun, points it at P, fires and hits him.
As Talbot J. said in Williams v Humphrey: 'it was argued that for the act to be a
battery, there must be an intent to injure.
I do not accept this contention.
The intention goes to the commission of the act of force. This seems to be the
principle in the many cases of trespass to the person.
Coward v Badley (1859)
A building was on fire.
A bystander Badley (the defendant) touched the arm of a fireman (the plaintiff) to
attract fireman’s attention to another part of the building where a fire was raging.
The plaintiff filed a suit in a court against the defendant for battery.
Court held that the act comes under the category called trifle where a person of normal
temper and sense would not complain and hence the defendant is not liable for the tort
of the battery as this amounts to a trivial act.
In case of Fowler v Lanning Trespass to the person does not lie if the injury to the plaintiff
was caused unintentionally and without neglfigence on the defendant's part. Direct act-
insufficient
The plaintiff was shot by the defendant while walking on a public footpath near a
shooting range. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to the person, but did not
allege that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim was invalid because he did not plead
negligence, which was necessary for unintentional trespass cases. The defendant also
argued that he was not liable because he was exercising his right to shoot on his own
land, and that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of being shot by walking
near the shooting range.
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had to prove
negligence on the part of the defendant in order to succeed in his claim for
unintentional trespass. The court also held that the defendant was not liable for
trespass because he was acting lawfully on his own land, and that the plaintiff had not
shown that he was unaware of the risk of being shot.
Further In case of Letang v. Cooper, Plaintiff was sunbathing- car ran over causing injury to
her legs- 3 years later she brought an action- for damage caused due to loss and injury; she
claimed negligence ad trespass to person, where court decided that it was not trespass as not
done intentionally but negligence was there thus liable for negligence only. If one man
intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault or
battery. If he does not intentionally inflict injury, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no
cause of action in trespass; his only cause of action is in negligence. Therefore, the only cause
of action in the present case – where the injury was unintentional – is negligence, which is
barred by the limitation period – Defendant was successful.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person which restricts that person’s freedom
of movement. The victim need not be physically restrained from moving. It is sufficient if
they are prevented from choosing to go where they please, even if only for a short time. This
includes being intimidated or ordered to stay somewhere. A person can also be restrained
even if they have a means of escape but it is unreasonable for them to take it, for example, if
they have no clothes or they are in a first floor room with only a window as a way out. False
imprisonment can also be committed if the victim is unaware that they are being restrained,
but it must be a fact that they are being restrained.
Acc to sec 399 of IPC wrongful restraint is defined as –
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in
any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.”
Punishable under S.341, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 month or fine up to Rs.500 or both.
Whereas wrongful confinement defined under sec 340 -
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to wrongfully to confine that
person.”
Punishable under S.342, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to Rs.1000 or both.
Very essentials of false imprisonment are –
1. Restraint of liberty of person - no matter whether the restraint is actual or
constructive, that is whether being done in normal room, cell, detaining on streets or
even by police like people or someone else, all comes under forced confinement or
restraint and hence false imprisonment. Bhim singh v. State of J&K - Bhim Singh,
an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested and detained by the police without any
valid reason and prevented from attending the legislative assembly session in 1985,
thus leading to false imprisonment and restriction.
2. Unlawful detention – period of detention is immaterial but its should be something
not reasonable and legitimate or necessary but unlawful, for eg police confines
person in the prison unlawfully without due procedure it is false imprisonment. Rudal
shah v. state of Bihar - another landmark case of wrongful imprisonment and
violation of fundamental rights. Rudal Shah, a man who was acquitted of murder
charges by the Sessions Court in 1968, was kept in jail for over 14 years without any
valid reason. He filed a writ petition of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking his release and compensation for his illegal
detention
3. Period of confinement - However short the period of unlawful detention an action
for false imprisonment will always lie, provided that the other requirements of the
torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very short period, say fifteen minutes is
sufficient to create liability of false imprisonment. The period of confinement is
generally of no relevance except in the estimation of damages.
4. Bird v. Jones [1845]
5. Bird, B, wished to cross a section of a public road which was closed off due to a boat
race. Two policemen prevented B from passing in the direction he wished to go, but
was allowed to go in the only other direction in which he could pass. B refused to go
in that direction and stood in the same place. B raised an action against D for false
imprisonment.
6. Knowledge of imprisonment whether relevant?
The detention of another person would have been wrong. There is no requirement
that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment was aware of his
restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement. But In the case of Herring v
Boyle, it has been held that such knowledge is essential , in that case a schoolmaster
wrongfully refused to permit a schoolboy to go with his mother unless the mother
paid an amount alleged to be due to him , the conversation between the mother and
schoolmaster was made in the absence of the boy and he was not cognizant of the
restraint. It was held that the refusal to the mother in the boy’s absence, and without
his being cognizant of the restraint, could not amount to false imprisonment.
Though overruled In the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, the claimant was
asked to go to a room with two work policemen from the Aviation company. He
asked why and stated he would leave if not told. When told it was on suspicion of
theft he agreed to stay, and the works police stood outside until the metropolitan
police arrived. Unknown to him they were asked to prevent him leaving. It was held
that an act which fulfils the requirement for a false imprisonment, even if the
claimant is unaware of it at the time, still counts. Meering was entitled to damages.
More than having knowledge of confinement, it depends on the damage it has done,
if the person had no knowledge of imprisonment and has caused no injury, then
atmost the person can sue for nominal damages. For eg - Where a man is locked in a
room without being aware of it and the door is unlocked after a short interval before
he discovers his confinement, he has suffered no actual damage and would at most
recover nominal damages. But if A locks B, a child two days old, in the vault. B is, of
course, unconscious of the confinement, but the vault cannot be opened for two days.
In the meantime, B suffers from hunger and thirst, and his health is seriously
impaired; or it may be that he even dies, this thus leads to false imprisonment.
Arrest by a public officer
If some sort of restraint is done by some public officer while doing his duty or for reasonable
cause or suspicion, for wrong like cognizable offences, or against whom reasonable
complaint is made or some credible info is received, wont lead to false imprisonment (sec 41
of Cr PC). For eg In case of Austin v. Commissioner of police of the metropolis due to crowd
control measure some were detained but were rejected the plea of false imprisonment as it
wasn’t unlawful but to maintain public peace.
Some other landmark judgements for the issued of arrest of people and their rights are
[Link] vs. State of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP where rights of
the person arrested were set to be treated with humane nature and rights like to be informed
about the arrest and other rights. Certain directives were been issued by the court where it
spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a detainee and the manner in which the arresting or
detaining authority is expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of
arrestee’s family of his arrest, medical examination on request, among others.
Rights of arrested person : right to informed of grounds of arrest, to inform
friend/relatives, to consult a lawyer, to be produced before Magistrate within 24
hrs of arrest – Art. 22(1) & (2), Indian Constitution.
Arrest by private person
S. 43, Cr. P.C. authorizes a private person to arrest another who has committed a non-
bailable and cognizable offence or is a proclaimed offender, though needed to be handed over
to the authorities. Not necessary that person before whom such offence has been committed
shall himself make the arrest, he may cause such arrest by another person, though burden of
proof is on defendant.
DEFAMATION
Right to reputation
Blackstone : Every man has an inherent personal right to reputation – a part of
right to personal security
It is a jus in rem
What is defamation?
Making any false statement which injures the reputation of a person.
A criminal offence under Sec. 499, IPC – Defamation
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible 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 expected, to defame that person.”
Competing interests to be balanced
Right to reputation and Freedom of speech – hence, reasonable restrictions under
Art. 19(2), Indian Constitution on fundamental right to freedom of speech &
expression under Art. 19(1).
Ingredients
a. A false statement must be made
b. It may be made either by writing or by way of speech
c. The statement must be defamatory i.e., it affects the reputation of a person.
d. The statement has to be communicated to a third person.
Essentials of Defamation
There are three main essentials of Defamation
[Link] statement must be published
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation
of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid
that person.
The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen. A man of fair average
intelligence, and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or
approved by the fair minded members of the society generally.
[Link] statement must refer to the plaintiff
If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
[Link] must be published
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the
person defamed and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.
Notable defamation cases in India
Defamation is an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines it
as making or publishing 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. Defamation can be civil or criminal, and can be in the form of libel (written) or
slander (spoken).
Here are some of the landmark defamation cases in India that have shaped the law and its
interpretation:
Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
o Year: 2016
o Facts: The constitutional validity of criminal defamation was challenged by
Subramanian Swamy and others, who argued that it violated the freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal
defamation, holding that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that a balance has to be struck
between the freedom of speech and the protection of reputation.
Case: MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani
o Year: 2021
o Facts: MJ Akbar, a former minister and journalist, sued Priya Ramani, a
female journalist, for defamation after she accused him of sexual harassment
during a job interview in a hotel room. Ramani was one of the many women
who came forward with allegations against Akbar as part of the #MeToo
movement in India.
o Outcome: The court acquitted Ramani of all charges, holding that she had a
right to raise her voice against sexual harassment and that her allegations were
made in good faith and public interest. The court also observed that women
cannot be punished for speaking out against sex abuse on the pretext of
criminal defamation.
Case: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
o Year: 1994
o Facts: R. Rajagopal, a journalist and publisher of a Tamil magazine, wrote an
article based on the autobiography of a prisoner named Auto Shankar, who
had confessed to committing several murders at the behest of some influential
persons. The state government and some individuals named in the article filed
a suit for injunction and damages against Rajagopal for defamation.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that no one has a right to prevent the
publication of a matter which is already in public domain, unless it amounts to
contempt of court or incitement to violence. The court also held that public
officials cannot sue for defamation for acts done by them in their official
capacity, unless they prove malice on the part of the publisher.
Case: Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab
o Year: 1970
o Facts: Chaman Lal, a lawyer and politician, made a speech at a public meeting
in which he accused a judge of corruption and bias. He was prosecuted for
criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC. He claimed that his speech was
protected by the ninth exception to Section 499, which allows an imputation
made in good faith by a person for the protection of his or other’s interests.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that Chaman Lal was not entitled to the
benefit of the ninth exception, as his speech was not made in good faith or for
the protection of any interest. The court also held that making defamatory
allegations against a judge amounts to scandalizing the court and lowers its
authority and dignity.
Kinds of defamation
Heads of distinction Libel Slander
Sl.
No.
1. Mode of publication Permanent form of Transient form of
defamation, eg., by writing, defamation, eg., by spoken
printing, pictures, waxwork, words or gesture
effigy, etc.
It is addressed to the ear
It addressed to the eye.
2. Whether civil Criminal offence as well as Only a civil wrong
wrong/criminal civil wrong
offence:
Position under
common law
Position under Indian Both are criminal offences under Section 499, IPC.
law
3. Whether damage to Actual damage need not be Special damage or
be proved and when proved. imputations need to be
actionable: proved subject to
Actionable per se. exceptions.
Position under
Common law Generally Actionable - it
becomes actionable per se in
certain instances*
Position under Indian Both are actionable with proof of special damage.
law
Presumption of There is a presumption of Slander may be uttered in the
malice malice as reduction of heat of the moment or sudden
. charges in writing and provocation, without prior
4
subsequent publication deliberation.
involves greater
deliberation.
Period of limitation: 6 years 2 years
5 Position under
common law
Position under 1 year both
6 Indian law
Libel
Essential ingredients:
1. A false statement must be made
2. The statement is in a written or a permanent form.
3. The statement must be published.
4. The statement is defamatory in nature.
False statement
Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proved to be true.
Defamation traditionally requires the proof of publication of a matter intentionally. It is
important to mention that any person who intentionally and maliciously publishes or
distributes such defamatory statement, is also liable as if he has made the statement
himself. However, if the defendant proves that the statement is true he will not be liable
for such defamation. In India and most other common law countries, the burden of proof
is on the defendant to show that the statement is true or the publication was not
intentional.
Writing or permanent form
The term libel indicates that something is printed or written but also includes effigy,
waxwork, caricatures, film, scandalous painting or emblem. Publication in permanent form :
Broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy (i.e. radio/television) & Theatrical
performances – hence qualify for libel.
In case of Yousoupoff v. Mayer Pictures Ltd. Film titled “Rasputin the Mad Monk”-
allegation of picture publication suggesting rape of Princess Irina of Russia- Circumstantial
details in the picture pointed to the plaintiff as the wronged woman and several of her
acquaintances believed that the film referred to her - awarded damages of 25000 pounds.
The statement must be published.
If the statement is sent directly to the person concerned that it is not defamation as it is
not published
However, when a defamatory statement is released to any other person other than the
intended person it shall fulfilled the last criteria for instituting a suit of defamation
In case of Muzban v. N Engineer, was case where some defamatory sentence were both
published in written form in a magzine as well as were spoken in public meeting infront of
everyone leading to libel and slander, thus being held defamatory, thus publishing being imp.
The statement is defamatory in nature.
Any words will be deemed defamatory which:
i) expose a person to hatred, contempt , ridicule, or obloqoy
ii) tend to injure him in his profession or trade; or
iii) cause him to be shunned or avoided in society.
Monson v Tussauds Ltd
Facts of the case: The person who was accused of murder in Scotland wasn't found guilty,
but the defendants still put up a wax figure of him holding a gun, along with other figures
related to infamous crimes. They charged extra to see it. The accused person sued, saying it
was slander and wanted them to stop showing his figure. The defendants didn't deny it or try
to defend themselves.
Judgement: The Court of Appeal said there was a chance the person agreed to the wax
figure display, so they couldn't prove it was libel enough to stop it. But they also said that
even if it's not written down, things like statues or pictures can still be considered
libel. So, in general, they can stop it if it's really bad, even if it's not about business stuff.
Standard test for defamation
In case of Sim v. Stretch, court laid down that, to make a defamatory statement, statement
has to be read and judge on whole and words used in it are to be given natural and ordinary
meaning as ascribed to them by ordinary men, like in this case asking to return the borrowed
money of his maid and her wages when she joined back, which were not defamatory perse.
Defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff
Plaintiff must show that defamatory statement refers to him. Not necessary that he
should be described by his own name – sufficient to be described by his initials of his
name, or a fictitious name – but he must satisfy the court that he was the person
referred to.
C.M.G. vs. Punjab Press Company, - In order to come to a conclusion as to whether certain
words and phrases refer to a particular individual or not, it is the view of the ordinary
reasonable reader of the article that should be given effect to and not the opinion arrived at
after a careful analysis and consideration of the article in its entirety
Slander in English Law
Common law exceptions to when slander is actionable per se without proof of special
damage
When it contains an imputation of :
a. A criminal offence punishable with imprisonment
b. An infectious or communicable disease, Blood-worth v. Gray [1844]- venereal
disease – son-in –law by father-in –law; held to defamation
c. Unchastity or adultery to a woman. Kerr vs. Kennedy [1942]- calling a women
‘lesbian’ is also defamation
Unfitness, dishonesty or incompetence in any office, trade, business or profession. Jones vs.
Jones [1916]-imputation of immorality against the head master of a school made without any
relation to his posi
Innuendo
Words prima facie innocent will be actionable when secondary or latent meaning is
proved by plaintiff.
In case of Morgan v. Odham’s Press Ltd [1971] - Newspaper article stated that a girl was
kidnapped by a dog-doping gang and kept in the flat in Kilburn during a specified week. Girl
was staying in the plaintiff’s flat in the previous week- Plaintiff’s witnesses deposed that on
reading the article, they understood of his connections with the gang.
Further in case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers, plaintiff was the wife of a horse
racer, and defendant published a photo with another woman with a sentence about them
announcing there engagement, showing plaintiff in bad picture, thus liable under inuendo
D. Defamation of a class of persons
Any member of the class can sue by proving that they were meant for him
There must be something in the word and the manner of publication which shows the
plaintiff was the target of the attack
A partnership firm cannot sue because a firm name is merely a compendious artificial
name adopted by the partnership & is not itself a legal entity. But a individual partner
may personally sue if defamed.
TORT-
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss
or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.[1] Tort
law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are
punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit
crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the
actions of others.[2][a] Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in
both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and
criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract
law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract.
Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed
regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
A tort is a harmful act that causes damages to another. Many tort cases involve simple
negligence, which means that the defendant failed to use the level of care that a
reasonable person would use in the same situation. For example, in the case of a car
accident caused by a distracted driver, the defendant (the driver) failed to drive in a
responsible and reasonable way, which resulted in the accident. In this case, the
plaintiff (the accident victim) would be eligible for personal injury damage
compensation. An intentional tort differs because the mental state of the person who
caused harm is “knowingly” or “purposefully.”
Types of torts
They are variety of torts been commited daily but can be divided in main 3 categories –
1. Negligent torts - Negligent torts, as their name suggests, are torts that are caused by
the negligence of the tortfeasor i.e., person who commits the tort.
2. Intentional torts - Intentional torts, also as their name suggests, are torts caused
intentionally by the tortfeasor.
3. Strict liability torts - Strict liability torts are torts where the law has determined that
some activities are so dangerous that an individual engaging in those activities is
liable for damages regardless of intent or negligence resulting in harm.
Kinds of Trespass to Person
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False Imprisonment
4. Defamation
5. Malicious Prosecution
6. Lawful Justifications
7. Damages
What does trespass really mean?
8. Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to
the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land. Generally, trespass to the person
consists of torts: assault, battery and false imprisonment.
9. There are three main wrongs which fall under the umbrella of trespass to the person: assault,
battery and false imprisonment. They are intentional torts, meaning they cannot be committed
by accident. Although these descriptions sound like they are crimes, and indeed do share their
names with some crimes, it is important to remember that these are civil wrongs and not
criminal wrongs. A person liable in tort for assault, battery or false imprisonment will not
face a sentence. Instead, they will be ordered to pay damages to their victim.
ASSAULT-
Assault is both treated as crime and a civil wrong that is tort. Generally, a person commits
criminal assault if he purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon
another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, he places another in
fear of imminent serious bodily injury, unreasonable fear.
Sec 351 of IPC - “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to
be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he
who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to
commit an assault.
Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses
may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or
preparations amount to an assault.”
Criminal proceeding for the act do not bar civil action.
An assault occurs when a person apprehends immediate and unlawful physical contact. In
other words, fearing that you are about to be physically attacked makes you the victim of an
assault. It is also necessary that an attack can actually take place. If an attack is impossible,
then despite a person’s apprehension of physical contact there can be no assault. So a person
waving a stick and chasing after another person who is driving away in a car would not be an
assault. It is also generally thought that words alone cannot constitute an assault, but if
accompanied by threatening behaviour the tort may have been committed.
Essentials of assault –
1. Intention to harm
2. Ability to carry out the harm
3. Knowledge of the threat
4. Apprehension or fear that something bad will happen
CASE-
Stephen v Myers (1830)
The claimant was chairing a meeting at a local parish. The defendant sat at the other end of
the table. The discussion became very heated. A motion was carried out by large majority
that defendant should be turned out of the meeting.
The defendant got out of his chair and told the claimant that he would ‘rather pull the
chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room’.
He then advanced on the claimant shaking his fist. Witnesses thought that the defendant’s
intent was to hit the claimant.
However, he was stopped by the churchwarden before he got near enough to strike.
The claimant sued the defendant for assault. The defendant argued that it was not an
assault because he had no power to carry out any threat. The court held that the
defendant’s words and actions would constitute an assault if the defendant had the
means to carry out his threat. This would be the case if the defendant was advancing in
a threatening manner such that his blow would have reached the claimant had he not
been stopped by a third-party.
The jury gave their verdict for the claimant, finding that the defendant had committed
an assault.
Tuberville v. Savage (1669)
A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “If it were not assize-time, I would not
take such language.” The justices of assize were in town.
Issues:
The question was as to whether laying a hand on a sword and stating “If it were not assize-
time, I would not take such language,” constituted an unlawful assault by placing another in
apprehension of immediate violence. The Court held that an assault requires both:
(1) the intention and
(2) the act of assault.
Accordingly, the Court held that the facts did not give rise to assault as the man merely
stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time.
It was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not
and did not intend to commit an assault.
Thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of assault, nor
imminent threat thereof.
A CASE OF ASSAULT?( ILLUSTRATION)
D points a gun at P. D knows that the gun is not loaded and has no intention of harming P.
However, P believes the gun is loaded, and believes that D is about to shoot him. D has
committed an Assault because he put P in reasonable apprehension of harmful contact, even
though D never intended to actually harm.
Battery
If the physical contact that is apprehended in an assault actually takes place, then the tort of
battery has been committed. It is not necessary for the physical contact to cause any injury or
permanent damage to the victim, or even be intended to do so. The only intention required is
that of making physical contact. It is also not necessary for the tortfeasor, that is, the
wrongdoer, to actually touch the victim, so battery may be committed by throwing stones at
someone or spitting on them.
spitting in the face;
throwing water over a person;
taking a person by the collar;
Causing a person to be medically examined against their will
ALL these serve as examples of Battery.
Cole v Turner (1704)
‘The least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow
passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently,
it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude
inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about the passage, to that degree as
may do hurt, is a battery.’
If any physical contact could constitute battery, or if there must be an element of
violence present. What mental states and actions constitute battery when one person
touches another?
A battery is a close-proximity violent or touch. A mild touch performed in close
proximity and without intent does not constitute a battery.
The courts will only go on to consider whether there has been an 'intentional' act if
there is a 'voluntary' act on the part of the defendant.
Voluntary here means that the defendant must consciously bring about the bodily
movement for which he is being held liable.
So, if a sleepwalker stepped on your face while you were lying on the floor he would
not be liable in battery as there would not be a voluntary act.
Similarly, if you are asleep on the back seat of a car and in your sleep, you push the
front seat forward, so that the driver is thrown into the steering wheel or runs into P
because he loses control of the car, neither will be successful in an action in battery
against you.
It goes without saying that if A takes B's hand forcibly and strikes C with it, B is not
liable because B has done no voluntary act.
In Gambriell v Caparelli (1975)
A Canadian judge expressed the view that ‘the distinction between assault and battery
had been blurred, and that when we now speak of an assault, it may include a battery.’
When is the act for the purposes of the tort battery said to be intentional?
If the act is deliberate or wilful, if the defendant 'meant to do it'," it will be regarded as
intentional, as when D punches P in the face with his fist because P has insulted him
or D takes a gun, points it at P, fires and hits him.
As Talbot J. said in Williams v Humphrey: 'it was argued that for the act to be a
battery, there must be an intent to injure.
I do not accept this contention.
The intention goes to the commission of the act of force. This seems to be the
principle in the many cases of trespass to the person.
Coward v Badley (1859)
A building was on fire.
A bystander Badley (the defendant) touched the arm of a fireman (the plaintiff) to
attract fireman’s attention to another part of the building where a fire was raging.
The plaintiff filed a suit in a court against the defendant for battery.
Court held that the act comes under the category called trifle where a person of normal
temper and sense would not complain and hence the defendant is not liable for the tort
of the battery as this amounts to a trivial act.
In case of Fowler v Lanning Trespass to the person does not lie if the injury to the plaintiff
was caused unintentionally and without neglfigence on the defendant's part. Direct act-
insufficient
The plaintiff was shot by the defendant while walking on a public footpath near a
shooting range. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to the person, but did not
allege that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim was invalid because he did not plead
negligence, which was necessary for unintentional trespass cases. The defendant also
argued that he was not liable because he was exercising his right to shoot on his own
land, and that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of being shot by walking
near the shooting range.
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had to prove
negligence on the part of the defendant in order to succeed in his claim for
unintentional trespass. The court also held that the defendant was not liable for
trespass because he was acting lawfully on his own land, and that the plaintiff had not
shown that he was unaware of the risk of being shot.
Further In case of Letang v. Cooper, Plaintiff was sunbathing- car ran over causing injury to
her legs- 3 years later she brought an action- for damage caused due to loss and injury; she
claimed negligence ad trespass to person, where court decided that it was not trespass as not
done intentionally but negligence was there thus liable for negligence only. If one man
intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault or
battery. If he does not intentionally inflict injury, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no
cause of action in trespass; his only cause of action is in negligence. Therefore, the only cause
of action in the present case – where the injury was unintentional – is negligence, which is
barred by the limitation period – Defendant was successful.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person which restricts that person’s freedom
of movement. The victim need not be physically restrained from moving. It is sufficient if
they are prevented from choosing to go where they please, even if only for a short time. This
includes being intimidated or ordered to stay somewhere. A person can also be restrained
even if they have a means of escape but it is unreasonable for them to take it, for example, if
they have no clothes or they are in a first floor room with only a window as a way out. False
imprisonment can also be committed if the victim is unaware that they are being restrained,
but it must be a fact that they are being restrained.
Acc to sec 399 of IPC wrongful restraint is defined as –
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in
any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.”
Punishable under S.341, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 month or fine up to Rs.500 or both.
Whereas wrongful confinement defined under sec 340 -
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to wrongfully to confine that
person.”
Punishable under S.342, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to Rs.1000 or both.
Very essentials of false imprisonment are –
1. Restraint of liberty of person - no matter whether the restraint is actual or
constructive, that is whether being done in normal room, cell, detaining on streets or
even by police like people or someone else, all comes under forced confinement or
restraint and hence false imprisonment. Bhim singh v. State of J&K - Bhim Singh,
an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested and detained by the police without any
valid reason and prevented from attending the legislative assembly session in 1985,
thus leading to false imprisonment and restriction.
2. Unlawful detention – period of detention is immaterial but its should be something
not reasonable and legitimate or necessary but unlawful, for eg police confines
person in the prison unlawfully without due procedure it is false imprisonment. Rudal
shah v. state of Bihar - another landmark case of wrongful imprisonment and
violation of fundamental rights. Rudal Shah, a man who was acquitted of murder
charges by the Sessions Court in 1968, was kept in jail for over 14 years without any
valid reason. He filed a writ petition of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking his release and compensation for his illegal
detention
3. Period of confinement - However short the period of unlawful detention an action
for false imprisonment will always lie, provided that the other requirements of the
torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very short period, say fifteen minutes is
sufficient to create liability of false imprisonment. The period of confinement is
generally of no relevance except in the estimation of damages.
4. Bird v. Jones [1845]
5. Bird, B, wished to cross a section of a public road which was closed off due to a boat
race. Two policemen prevented B from passing in the direction he wished to go, but
was allowed to go in the only other direction in which he could pass. B refused to go
in that direction and stood in the same place. B raised an action against D for false
imprisonment.
6. Knowledge of imprisonment whether relevant?
The detention of another person would have been wrong. There is no requirement
that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment was aware of his
restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement. But In the case of Herring v
Boyle, it has been held that such knowledge is essential , in that case a schoolmaster
wrongfully refused to permit a schoolboy to go with his mother unless the mother
paid an amount alleged to be due to him , the conversation between the mother and
schoolmaster was made in the absence of the boy and he was not cognizant of the
restraint. It was held that the refusal to the mother in the boy’s absence, and without
his being cognizant of the restraint, could not amount to false imprisonment.
Though overruled In the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, the claimant was
asked to go to a room with two work policemen from the Aviation company. He
asked why and stated he would leave if not told. When told it was on suspicion of
theft he agreed to stay, and the works police stood outside until the metropolitan
police arrived. Unknown to him they were asked to prevent him leaving. It was held
that an act which fulfils the requirement for a false imprisonment, even if the
claimant is unaware of it at the time, still counts. Meering was entitled to damages.
More than having knowledge of confinement, it depends on the damage it has done,
if the person had no knowledge of imprisonment and has caused no injury, then
atmost the person can sue for nominal damages. For eg - Where a man is locked in a
room without being aware of it and the door is unlocked after a short interval before
he discovers his confinement, he has suffered no actual damage and would at most
recover nominal damages. But if A locks B, a child two days old, in the vault. B is, of
course, unconscious of the confinement, but the vault cannot be opened for two days.
In the meantime, B suffers from hunger and thirst, and his health is seriously
impaired; or it may be that he even dies, this thus leads to false imprisonment.
Arrest by a public officer
If some sort of restraint is done by some public officer while doing his duty or for reasonable
cause or suspicion, for wrong like cognizable offences, or against whom reasonable
complaint is made or some credible info is received, wont lead to false imprisonment (sec 41
of Cr PC). For eg In case of Austin v. Commissioner of police of the metropolis due to crowd
control measure some were detained but were rejected the plea of false imprisonment as it
wasn’t unlawful but to maintain public peace.
Some other landmark judgements for the issued of arrest of people and their rights are
[Link] vs. State of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP where rights of
the person arrested were set to be treated with humane nature and rights like to be informed
about the arrest and other rights. Certain directives were been issued by the court where it
spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a detainee and the manner in which the arresting or
detaining authority is expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of
arrestee’s family of his arrest, medical examination on request, among others.
Rights of arrested person : right to informed of grounds of arrest, to inform
friend/relatives, to consult a lawyer, to be produced before Magistrate within 24
hrs of arrest – Art. 22(1) & (2), Indian Constitution.
Arrest by private person
S. 43, Cr. P.C. authorizes a private person to arrest another who has committed a non-
bailable and cognizable offence or is a proclaimed offender, though needed to be handed over
to the authorities. Not necessary that person before whom such offence has been committed
shall himself make the arrest, he may cause such arrest by another person, though burden of
proof is on defendant.
DEFAMATION
Right to reputation
Blackstone : Every man has an inherent personal right to reputation – a part of
right to personal security
It is a jus in rem
What is defamation?
Making any false statement which injures the reputation of a person.
A criminal offence under Sec. 499, IPC – Defamation
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible 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 expected, to defame that person.”
Competing interests to be balanced
Right to reputation and Freedom of speech – hence, reasonable restrictions under
Art. 19(2), Indian Constitution on fundamental right to freedom of speech &
expression under Art. 19(1).
Ingredients
a. A false statement must be made
b. It may be made either by writing or by way of speech
c. The statement must be defamatory i.e., it affects the reputation of a person.
d. The statement has to be communicated to a third person.
Essentials of Defamation
There are three main essentials of Defamation
[Link] statement must be published
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation
of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid
that person.
The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen. A man of fair average
intelligence, and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or
approved by the fair minded members of the society generally.
[Link] statement must refer to the plaintiff
If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
[Link] must be published
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the
person defamed and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.
Notable defamation cases in India
Defamation is an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines it
as making or publishing 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. Defamation can be civil or criminal, and can be in the form of libel (written) or
slander (spoken).
Here are some of the landmark defamation cases in India that have shaped the law and its
interpretation:
Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
o Year: 2016
o Facts: The constitutional validity of criminal defamation was challenged by
Subramanian Swamy and others, who argued that it violated the freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal
defamation, holding that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that a balance has to be struck
between the freedom of speech and the protection of reputation.
Case: MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani
o Year: 2021
o Facts: MJ Akbar, a former minister and journalist, sued Priya Ramani, a
female journalist, for defamation after she accused him of sexual harassment
during a job interview in a hotel room. Ramani was one of the many women
who came forward with allegations against Akbar as part of the #MeToo
movement in India.
o Outcome: The court acquitted Ramani of all charges, holding that she had a
right to raise her voice against sexual harassment and that her allegations were
made in good faith and public interest. The court also observed that women
cannot be punished for speaking out against sex abuse on the pretext of
criminal defamation.
Case: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
o Year: 1994
o Facts: R. Rajagopal, a journalist and publisher of a Tamil magazine, wrote an
article based on the autobiography of a prisoner named Auto Shankar, who
had confessed to committing several murders at the behest of some influential
persons. The state government and some individuals named in the article filed
a suit for injunction and damages against Rajagopal for defamation.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that no one has a right to prevent the
publication of a matter which is already in public domain, unless it amounts to
contempt of court or incitement to violence. The court also held that public
officials cannot sue for defamation for acts done by them in their official
capacity, unless they prove malice on the part of the publisher.
Case: Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab
o Year: 1970
o Facts: Chaman Lal, a lawyer and politician, made a speech at a public meeting
in which he accused a judge of corruption and bias. He was prosecuted for
criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC. He claimed that his speech was
protected by the ninth exception to Section 499, which allows an imputation
made in good faith by a person for the protection of his or other’s interests.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that Chaman Lal was not entitled to the
benefit of the ninth exception, as his speech was not made in good faith or for
the protection of any interest. The court also held that making defamatory
allegations against a judge amounts to scandalizing the court and lowers its
authority and dignity.
Kinds of defamation
Heads of distinction Libel Slander
Sl.
No.
1. Mode of publication Permanent form of Transient form of
defamation, eg., by writing, defamation, eg., by spoken
printing, pictures, waxwork, words or gesture
effigy, etc.
It is addressed to the ear
It addressed to the eye.
2. Whether civil Criminal offence as well as Only a civil wrong
wrong/criminal civil wrong
offence:
Position under
common law
Position under Indian Both are criminal offences under Section 499, IPC.
law
3. Whether damage to Actual damage need not be Special damage or
be proved and when proved. imputations need to be
actionable: proved subject to
Actionable per se. exceptions.
Position under
Common law Generally Actionable - it
becomes actionable per se in
certain instances*
Position under Indian Both are actionable with proof of special damage.
law
Presumption of There is a presumption of Slander may be uttered in the
malice malice as reduction of heat of the moment or sudden
. charges in writing and provocation, without prior
4
subsequent publication deliberation.
involves greater
deliberation.
Period of limitation: 6 years 2 years
5 Position under
common law
Position under 1 year both
6 Indian law
Libel
Essential ingredients:
1. A false statement must be made
2. The statement is in a written or a permanent form.
3. The statement must be published.
4. The statement is defamatory in nature.
False statement
Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proved to be true.
Defamation traditionally requires the proof of publication of a matter intentionally. It is
important to mention that any person who intentionally and maliciously publishes or
distributes such defamatory statement, is also liable as if he has made the statement
himself. However, if the defendant proves that the statement is true he will not be liable
for such defamation. In India and most other common law countries, the burden of proof
is on the defendant to show that the statement is true or the publication was not
intentional.
Writing or permanent form
The term libel indicates that something is printed or written but also includes effigy,
waxwork, caricatures, film, scandalous painting or emblem. Publication in permanent form :
Broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy (i.e. radio/television) & Theatrical
performances – hence qualify for libel.
In case of Yousoupoff v. Mayer Pictures Ltd. Film titled “Rasputin the Mad Monk”-
allegation of picture publication suggesting rape of Princess Irina of Russia- Circumstantial
details in the picture pointed to the plaintiff as the wronged woman and several of her
acquaintances believed that the film referred to her - awarded damages of 25000 pounds.
The statement must be published.
If the statement is sent directly to the person concerned that it is not defamation as it is
not published
However, when a defamatory statement is released to any other person other than the
intended person it shall fulfilled the last criteria for instituting a suit of defamation
In case of Muzban v. N Engineer, was case where some defamatory sentence were both
published in written form in a magzine as well as were spoken in public meeting infront of
everyone leading to libel and slander, thus being held defamatory, thus publishing being imp.
The statement is defamatory in nature.
Any words will be deemed defamatory which:
i) expose a person to hatred, contempt , ridicule, or obloqoy
ii) tend to injure him in his profession or trade; or
iii) cause him to be shunned or avoided in society.
Monson v Tussauds Ltd
Facts of the case: The person who was accused of murder in Scotland wasn't found guilty,
but the defendants still put up a wax figure of him holding a gun, along with other figures
related to infamous crimes. They charged extra to see it. The accused person sued, saying it
was slander and wanted them to stop showing his figure. The defendants didn't deny it or try
to defend themselves.
Judgement: The Court of Appeal said there was a chance the person agreed to the wax
figure display, so they couldn't prove it was libel enough to stop it. But they also said that
even if it's not written down, things like statues or pictures can still be considered
libel. So, in general, they can stop it if it's really bad, even if it's not about business stuff.
Standard test for defamation
In case of Sim v. Stretch, court laid down that, to make a defamatory statement, statement
has to be read and judge on whole and words used in it are to be given natural and ordinary
meaning as ascribed to them by ordinary men, like in this case asking to return the borrowed
money of his maid and her wages when she joined back, which were not defamatory perse.
Defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff
Plaintiff must show that defamatory statement refers to him. Not necessary that he
should be described by his own name – sufficient to be described by his initials of his
name, or a fictitious name – but he must satisfy the court that he was the person
referred to.
C.M.G. vs. Punjab Press Company, - In order to come to a conclusion as to whether certain
words and phrases refer to a particular individual or not, it is the view of the ordinary
reasonable reader of the article that should be given effect to and not the opinion arrived at
after a careful analysis and consideration of the article in its entirety
Slander in English Law
Common law exceptions to when slander is actionable per se without proof of special
damage
When it contains an imputation of :
a. A criminal offence punishable with imprisonment
b. An infectious or communicable disease, Blood-worth v. Gray [1844]- venereal
disease – son-in –law by father-in –law; held to defamation
c. Unchastity or adultery to a woman. Kerr vs. Kennedy [1942]- calling a women
‘lesbian’ is also defamation
Unfitness, dishonesty or incompetence in any office, trade, business or profession. Jones vs.
Jones [1916]-imputation of immorality against the head master of a school made without any
relation to his posi
Innuendo
Words prima facie innocent will be actionable when secondary or latent meaning is
proved by plaintiff.
In case of Morgan v. Odham’s Press Ltd [1971] - Newspaper article stated that a girl was
kidnapped by a dog-doping gang and kept in the flat in Kilburn during a specified week. Girl
was staying in the plaintiff’s flat in the previous week- Plaintiff’s witnesses deposed that on
reading the article, they understood of his connections with the gang.
Further in case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers, plaintiff was the wife of a horse
racer, and defendant published a photo with another woman with a sentence about them
announcing there engagement, showing plaintiff in bad picture, thus liable under inuendo
D. Defamation of a class of persons
Any member of the class can sue by proving that they were meant for him
There must be something in the word and the manner of publication which shows the
plaintiff was the target of the attack
A partnership firm cannot sue because a firm name is merely a compendious artificial
name adopted by the partnership & is not itself a legal entity. But a individual partner
may personally sue if defamed.
TORT-
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss
or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.[1] Tort
law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are
punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit
crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the
actions of others.[2][a] Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in
both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and
criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract
law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract.
Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed
regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
A tort is a harmful act that causes damages to another. Many tort cases involve simple
negligence, which means that the defendant failed to use the level of care that a
reasonable person would use in the same situation. For example, in the case of a car
accident caused by a distracted driver, the defendant (the driver) failed to drive in a
responsible and reasonable way, which resulted in the accident. In this case, the
plaintiff (the accident victim) would be eligible for personal injury damage
compensation. An intentional tort differs because the mental state of the person who
caused harm is “knowingly” or “purposefully.”
Types of torts
They are variety of torts been commited daily but can be divided in main 3 categories –
1. Negligent torts - Negligent torts, as their name suggests, are torts that are caused by
the negligence of the tortfeasor i.e., person who commits the tort.
2. Intentional torts - Intentional torts, also as their name suggests, are torts caused
intentionally by the tortfeasor.
3. Strict liability torts - Strict liability torts are torts where the law has determined that
some activities are so dangerous that an individual engaging in those activities is
liable for damages regardless of intent or negligence resulting in harm.
Kinds of Trespass to Person
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False Imprisonment
4. Defamation
5. Malicious Prosecution
6. Lawful Justifications
7. Damages
What does trespass really mean?
8. Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to
the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land. Generally, trespass to the person
consists of torts: assault, battery and false imprisonment.
9. There are three main wrongs which fall under the umbrella of trespass to the person: assault,
battery and false imprisonment. They are intentional torts, meaning they cannot be committed
by accident. Although these descriptions sound like they are crimes, and indeed do share their
names with some crimes, it is important to remember that these are civil wrongs and not
criminal wrongs. A person liable in tort for assault, battery or false imprisonment will not
face a sentence. Instead, they will be ordered to pay damages to their victim.
ASSAULT-
Assault is both treated as crime and a civil wrong that is tort. Generally, a person commits
criminal assault if he purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon
another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, he places another in
fear of imminent serious bodily injury, unreasonable fear.
Sec 351 of IPC - “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to
be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he
who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to
commit an assault.
Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses
may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or
preparations amount to an assault.”
Criminal proceeding for the act do not bar civil action.
An assault occurs when a person apprehends immediate and unlawful physical contact. In
other words, fearing that you are about to be physically attacked makes you the victim of an
assault. It is also necessary that an attack can actually take place. If an attack is impossible,
then despite a person’s apprehension of physical contact there can be no assault. So a person
waving a stick and chasing after another person who is driving away in a car would not be an
assault. It is also generally thought that words alone cannot constitute an assault, but if
accompanied by threatening behaviour the tort may have been committed.
Essentials of assault –
1. Intention to harm
2. Ability to carry out the harm
3. Knowledge of the threat
4. Apprehension or fear that something bad will happen
CASE-
Stephen v Myers (1830)
The claimant was chairing a meeting at a local parish. The defendant sat at the other end of
the table. The discussion became very heated. A motion was carried out by large majority
that defendant should be turned out of the meeting.
The defendant got out of his chair and told the claimant that he would ‘rather pull the
chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room’.
He then advanced on the claimant shaking his fist. Witnesses thought that the defendant’s
intent was to hit the claimant.
However, he was stopped by the churchwarden before he got near enough to strike.
The claimant sued the defendant for assault. The defendant argued that it was not an
assault because he had no power to carry out any threat. The court held that the
defendant’s words and actions would constitute an assault if the defendant had the
means to carry out his threat. This would be the case if the defendant was advancing in
a threatening manner such that his blow would have reached the claimant had he not
been stopped by a third-party.
The jury gave their verdict for the claimant, finding that the defendant had committed
an assault.
Tuberville v. Savage (1669)
A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “If it were not assize-time, I would not
take such language.” The justices of assize were in town.
Issues:
The question was as to whether laying a hand on a sword and stating “If it were not assize-
time, I would not take such language,” constituted an unlawful assault by placing another in
apprehension of immediate violence. The Court held that an assault requires both:
(1) the intention and
(2) the act of assault.
Accordingly, the Court held that the facts did not give rise to assault as the man merely
stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time.
It was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not
and did not intend to commit an assault.
Thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of assault, nor
imminent threat thereof.
A CASE OF ASSAULT?( ILLUSTRATION)
D points a gun at P. D knows that the gun is not loaded and has no intention of harming P.
However, P believes the gun is loaded, and believes that D is about to shoot him. D has
committed an Assault because he put P in reasonable apprehension of harmful contact, even
though D never intended to actually harm.
Battery
If the physical contact that is apprehended in an assault actually takes place, then the tort of
battery has been committed. It is not necessary for the physical contact to cause any injury or
permanent damage to the victim, or even be intended to do so. The only intention required is
that of making physical contact. It is also not necessary for the tortfeasor, that is, the
wrongdoer, to actually touch the victim, so battery may be committed by throwing stones at
someone or spitting on them.
spitting in the face;
throwing water over a person;
taking a person by the collar;
Causing a person to be medically examined against their will
ALL these serve as examples of Battery.
Cole v Turner (1704)
‘The least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow
passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently,
it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude
inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about the passage, to that degree as
may do hurt, is a battery.’
If any physical contact could constitute battery, or if there must be an element of
violence present. What mental states and actions constitute battery when one person
touches another?
A battery is a close-proximity violent or touch. A mild touch performed in close
proximity and without intent does not constitute a battery.
The courts will only go on to consider whether there has been an 'intentional' act if
there is a 'voluntary' act on the part of the defendant.
Voluntary here means that the defendant must consciously bring about the bodily
movement for which he is being held liable.
So, if a sleepwalker stepped on your face while you were lying on the floor he would
not be liable in battery as there would not be a voluntary act.
Similarly, if you are asleep on the back seat of a car and in your sleep, you push the
front seat forward, so that the driver is thrown into the steering wheel or runs into P
because he loses control of the car, neither will be successful in an action in battery
against you.
It goes without saying that if A takes B's hand forcibly and strikes C with it, B is not
liable because B has done no voluntary act.
In Gambriell v Caparelli (1975)
A Canadian judge expressed the view that ‘the distinction between assault and battery
had been blurred, and that when we now speak of an assault, it may include a battery.’
When is the act for the purposes of the tort battery said to be intentional?
If the act is deliberate or wilful, if the defendant 'meant to do it'," it will be regarded as
intentional, as when D punches P in the face with his fist because P has insulted him
or D takes a gun, points it at P, fires and hits him.
As Talbot J. said in Williams v Humphrey: 'it was argued that for the act to be a
battery, there must be an intent to injure.
I do not accept this contention.
The intention goes to the commission of the act of force. This seems to be the
principle in the many cases of trespass to the person.
Coward v Badley (1859)
A building was on fire.
A bystander Badley (the defendant) touched the arm of a fireman (the plaintiff) to
attract fireman’s attention to another part of the building where a fire was raging.
The plaintiff filed a suit in a court against the defendant for battery.
Court held that the act comes under the category called trifle where a person of normal
temper and sense would not complain and hence the defendant is not liable for the tort
of the battery as this amounts to a trivial act.
In case of Fowler v Lanning Trespass to the person does not lie if the injury to the plaintiff
was caused unintentionally and without neglfigence on the defendant's part. Direct act-
insufficient
The plaintiff was shot by the defendant while walking on a public footpath near a
shooting range. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to the person, but did not
allege that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim was invalid because he did not plead
negligence, which was necessary for unintentional trespass cases. The defendant also
argued that he was not liable because he was exercising his right to shoot on his own
land, and that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of being shot by walking
near the shooting range.
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had to prove
negligence on the part of the defendant in order to succeed in his claim for
unintentional trespass. The court also held that the defendant was not liable for
trespass because he was acting lawfully on his own land, and that the plaintiff had not
shown that he was unaware of the risk of being shot.
Further In case of Letang v. Cooper, Plaintiff was sunbathing- car ran over causing injury to
her legs- 3 years later she brought an action- for damage caused due to loss and injury; she
claimed negligence ad trespass to person, where court decided that it was not trespass as not
done intentionally but negligence was there thus liable for negligence only. If one man
intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault or
battery. If he does not intentionally inflict injury, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no
cause of action in trespass; his only cause of action is in negligence. Therefore, the only cause
of action in the present case – where the injury was unintentional – is negligence, which is
barred by the limitation period – Defendant was successful.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person which restricts that person’s freedom
of movement. The victim need not be physically restrained from moving. It is sufficient if
they are prevented from choosing to go where they please, even if only for a short time. This
includes being intimidated or ordered to stay somewhere. A person can also be restrained
even if they have a means of escape but it is unreasonable for them to take it, for example, if
they have no clothes or they are in a first floor room with only a window as a way out. False
imprisonment can also be committed if the victim is unaware that they are being restrained,
but it must be a fact that they are being restrained.
Acc to sec 399 of IPC wrongful restraint is defined as –
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in
any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.”
Punishable under S.341, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 month or fine up to Rs.500 or both.
Whereas wrongful confinement defined under sec 340 -
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to wrongfully to confine that
person.”
Punishable under S.342, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to Rs.1000 or both.
Very essentials of false imprisonment are –
1. Restraint of liberty of person - no matter whether the restraint is actual or
constructive, that is whether being done in normal room, cell, detaining on streets or
even by police like people or someone else, all comes under forced confinement or
restraint and hence false imprisonment. Bhim singh v. State of J&K - Bhim Singh,
an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested and detained by the police without any
valid reason and prevented from attending the legislative assembly session in 1985,
thus leading to false imprisonment and restriction.
2. Unlawful detention – period of detention is immaterial but its should be something
not reasonable and legitimate or necessary but unlawful, for eg police confines
person in the prison unlawfully without due procedure it is false imprisonment. Rudal
shah v. state of Bihar - another landmark case of wrongful imprisonment and
violation of fundamental rights. Rudal Shah, a man who was acquitted of murder
charges by the Sessions Court in 1968, was kept in jail for over 14 years without any
valid reason. He filed a writ petition of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking his release and compensation for his illegal
detention
3. Period of confinement - However short the period of unlawful detention an action
for false imprisonment will always lie, provided that the other requirements of the
torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very short period, say fifteen minutes is
sufficient to create liability of false imprisonment. The period of confinement is
generally of no relevance except in the estimation of damages.
4. Bird v. Jones [1845]
5. Bird, B, wished to cross a section of a public road which was closed off due to a boat
race. Two policemen prevented B from passing in the direction he wished to go, but
was allowed to go in the only other direction in which he could pass. B refused to go
in that direction and stood in the same place. B raised an action against D for false
imprisonment.
6. Knowledge of imprisonment whether relevant?
The detention of another person would have been wrong. There is no requirement
that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment was aware of his
restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement. But In the case of Herring v
Boyle, it has been held that such knowledge is essential , in that case a schoolmaster
wrongfully refused to permit a schoolboy to go with his mother unless the mother
paid an amount alleged to be due to him , the conversation between the mother and
schoolmaster was made in the absence of the boy and he was not cognizant of the
restraint. It was held that the refusal to the mother in the boy’s absence, and without
his being cognizant of the restraint, could not amount to false imprisonment.
Though overruled In the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, the claimant was
asked to go to a room with two work policemen from the Aviation company. He
asked why and stated he would leave if not told. When told it was on suspicion of
theft he agreed to stay, and the works police stood outside until the metropolitan
police arrived. Unknown to him they were asked to prevent him leaving. It was held
that an act which fulfils the requirement for a false imprisonment, even if the
claimant is unaware of it at the time, still counts. Meering was entitled to damages.
More than having knowledge of confinement, it depends on the damage it has done,
if the person had no knowledge of imprisonment and has caused no injury, then
atmost the person can sue for nominal damages. For eg - Where a man is locked in a
room without being aware of it and the door is unlocked after a short interval before
he discovers his confinement, he has suffered no actual damage and would at most
recover nominal damages. But if A locks B, a child two days old, in the vault. B is, of
course, unconscious of the confinement, but the vault cannot be opened for two days.
In the meantime, B suffers from hunger and thirst, and his health is seriously
impaired; or it may be that he even dies, this thus leads to false imprisonment.
Arrest by a public officer
If some sort of restraint is done by some public officer while doing his duty or for reasonable
cause or suspicion, for wrong like cognizable offences, or against whom reasonable
complaint is made or some credible info is received, wont lead to false imprisonment (sec 41
of Cr PC). For eg In case of Austin v. Commissioner of police of the metropolis due to crowd
control measure some were detained but were rejected the plea of false imprisonment as it
wasn’t unlawful but to maintain public peace.
Some other landmark judgements for the issued of arrest of people and their rights are
[Link] vs. State of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP where rights of
the person arrested were set to be treated with humane nature and rights like to be informed
about the arrest and other rights. Certain directives were been issued by the court where it
spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a detainee and the manner in which the arresting or
detaining authority is expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of
arrestee’s family of his arrest, medical examination on request, among others.
Rights of arrested person : right to informed of grounds of arrest, to inform
friend/relatives, to consult a lawyer, to be produced before Magistrate within 24
hrs of arrest – Art. 22(1) & (2), Indian Constitution.
Arrest by private person
S. 43, Cr. P.C. authorizes a private person to arrest another who has committed a non-
bailable and cognizable offence or is a proclaimed offender, though needed to be handed over
to the authorities. Not necessary that person before whom such offence has been committed
shall himself make the arrest, he may cause such arrest by another person, though burden of
proof is on defendant.
DEFAMATION
Right to reputation
Blackstone : Every man has an inherent personal right to reputation – a part of
right to personal security
It is a jus in rem
What is defamation?
Making any false statement which injures the reputation of a person.
A criminal offence under Sec. 499, IPC – Defamation
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible 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 expected, to defame that person.”
Competing interests to be balanced
Right to reputation and Freedom of speech – hence, reasonable restrictions under
Art. 19(2), Indian Constitution on fundamental right to freedom of speech &
expression under Art. 19(1).
Ingredients
a. A false statement must be made
b. It may be made either by writing or by way of speech
c. The statement must be defamatory i.e., it affects the reputation of a person.
d. The statement has to be communicated to a third person.
Essentials of Defamation
There are three main essentials of Defamation
[Link] statement must be published
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation
of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid
that person.
The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen. A man of fair average
intelligence, and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or
approved by the fair minded members of the society generally.
[Link] statement must refer to the plaintiff
If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
[Link] must be published
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the
person defamed and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.
Notable defamation cases in India
Defamation is an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines it
as making or publishing 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. Defamation can be civil or criminal, and can be in the form of libel (written) or
slander (spoken).
Here are some of the landmark defamation cases in India that have shaped the law and its
interpretation:
Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
o Year: 2016
o Facts: The constitutional validity of criminal defamation was challenged by
Subramanian Swamy and others, who argued that it violated the freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal
defamation, holding that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that a balance has to be struck
between the freedom of speech and the protection of reputation.
Case: MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani
o Year: 2021
o Facts: MJ Akbar, a former minister and journalist, sued Priya Ramani, a
female journalist, for defamation after she accused him of sexual harassment
during a job interview in a hotel room. Ramani was one of the many women
who came forward with allegations against Akbar as part of the #MeToo
movement in India.
o Outcome: The court acquitted Ramani of all charges, holding that she had a
right to raise her voice against sexual harassment and that her allegations were
made in good faith and public interest. The court also observed that women
cannot be punished for speaking out against sex abuse on the pretext of
criminal defamation.
Case: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
o Year: 1994
o Facts: R. Rajagopal, a journalist and publisher of a Tamil magazine, wrote an
article based on the autobiography of a prisoner named Auto Shankar, who
had confessed to committing several murders at the behest of some influential
persons. The state government and some individuals named in the article filed
a suit for injunction and damages against Rajagopal for defamation.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that no one has a right to prevent the
publication of a matter which is already in public domain, unless it amounts to
contempt of court or incitement to violence. The court also held that public
officials cannot sue for defamation for acts done by them in their official
capacity, unless they prove malice on the part of the publisher.
Case: Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab
o Year: 1970
o Facts: Chaman Lal, a lawyer and politician, made a speech at a public meeting
in which he accused a judge of corruption and bias. He was prosecuted for
criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC. He claimed that his speech was
protected by the ninth exception to Section 499, which allows an imputation
made in good faith by a person for the protection of his or other’s interests.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court held that Chaman Lal was not entitled to the
benefit of the ninth exception, as his speech was not made in good faith or for
the protection of any interest. The court also held that making defamatory
allegations against a judge amounts to scandalizing the court and lowers its
authority and dignity.
Kinds of defamation
Heads of distinction Libel Slander
Sl.
No.
1. Mode of publication Permanent form of Transient form of
defamation, eg., by writing, defamation, eg., by spoken
printing, pictures, waxwork, words or gesture
effigy, etc.
It is addressed to the ear
It addressed to the eye.
2. Whether civil Criminal offence as well as Only a civil wrong
wrong/criminal civil wrong
offence:
Position under
common law
Position under Indian Both are criminal offences under Section 499, IPC.
law
3. Whether damage to Actual damage need not be Special damage or
be proved and when proved. imputations need to be
actionable: proved subject to
Actionable per se. exceptions.
Position under
Common law Generally Actionable - it
becomes actionable per se in
certain instances*
Position under Indian Both are actionable with proof of special damage.
law
Presumption of There is a presumption of Slander may be uttered in the
malice malice as reduction of heat of the moment or sudden
. charges in writing and provocation, without prior
4
subsequent publication deliberation.
involves greater
deliberation.
Period of limitation: 6 years 2 years
5 Position under
common law
Position under 1 year both
6 Indian law
Libel
Essential ingredients:
1. A false statement must be made
2. The statement is in a written or a permanent form.
3. The statement must be published.
4. The statement is defamatory in nature.
False statement
Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proved to be true.
Defamation traditionally requires the proof of publication of a matter intentionally. It is
important to mention that any person who intentionally and maliciously publishes or
distributes such defamatory statement, is also liable as if he has made the statement
himself. However, if the defendant proves that the statement is true he will not be liable
for such defamation. In India and most other common law countries, the burden of proof
is on the defendant to show that the statement is true or the publication was not
intentional.
Writing or permanent form
The term libel indicates that something is printed or written but also includes effigy,
waxwork, caricatures, film, scandalous painting or emblem. Publication in permanent form :
Broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy (i.e. radio/television) & Theatrical
performances – hence qualify for libel.
In case of Yousoupoff v. Mayer Pictures Ltd. Film titled “Rasputin the Mad Monk”-
allegation of picture publication suggesting rape of Princess Irina of Russia- Circumstantial
details in the picture pointed to the plaintiff as the wronged woman and several of her
acquaintances believed that the film referred to her - awarded damages of 25000 pounds.
The statement must be published.
If the statement is sent directly to the person concerned that it is not defamation as it is
not published
However, when a defamatory statement is released to any other person other than the
intended person it shall fulfilled the last criteria for instituting a suit of defamation
In case of Muzban v. N Engineer, was case where some defamatory sentence were both
published in written form in a magzine as well as were spoken in public meeting infront of
everyone leading to libel and slander, thus being held defamatory, thus publishing being imp.
The statement is defamatory in nature.
Any words will be deemed defamatory which:
i) expose a person to hatred, contempt , ridicule, or obloqoy
ii) tend to injure him in his profession or trade; or
iii) cause him to be shunned or avoided in society.
Monson v Tussauds Ltd
Facts of the case: The person who was accused of murder in Scotland wasn't found guilty,
but the defendants still put up a wax figure of him holding a gun, along with other figures
related to infamous crimes. They charged extra to see it. The accused person sued, saying it
was slander and wanted them to stop showing his figure. The defendants didn't deny it or try
to defend themselves.
Judgement: The Court of Appeal said there was a chance the person agreed to the wax
figure display, so they couldn't prove it was libel enough to stop it. But they also said that
even if it's not written down, things like statues or pictures can still be considered
libel. So, in general, they can stop it if it's really bad, even if it's not about business stuff.
Standard test for defamation
In case of Sim v. Stretch, court laid down that, to make a defamatory statement, statement
has to be read and judge on whole and words used in it are to be given natural and ordinary
meaning as ascribed to them by ordinary men, like in this case asking to return the borrowed
money of his maid and her wages when she joined back, which were not defamatory perse.
Defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff
Plaintiff must show that defamatory statement refers to him. Not necessary that he
should be described by his own name – sufficient to be described by his initials of his
name, or a fictitious name – but he must satisfy the court that he was the person
referred to.
C.M.G. vs. Punjab Press Company, - In order to come to a conclusion as to whether certain
words and phrases refer to a particular individual or not, it is the view of the ordinary
reasonable reader of the article that should be given effect to and not the opinion arrived at
after a careful analysis and consideration of the article in its entirety
Slander in English Law
Common law exceptions to when slander is actionable per se without proof of special
damage
When it contains an imputation of :
a. A criminal offence punishable with imprisonment
b. An infectious or communicable disease, Blood-worth v. Gray [1844]- venereal
disease – son-in –law by father-in –law; held to defamation
c. Unchastity or adultery to a woman. Kerr vs. Kennedy [1942]- calling a women
‘lesbian’ is also defamation
Unfitness, dishonesty or incompetence in any office, trade, business or profession. Jones vs.
Jones [1916]-imputation of immorality against the head master of a school made without any
relation to his posi
Innuendo
Words prima facie innocent will be actionable when secondary or latent meaning is
proved by plaintiff.
In case of Morgan v. Odham’s Press Ltd [1971] - Newspaper article stated that a girl was
kidnapped by a dog-doping gang and kept in the flat in Kilburn during a specified week. Girl
was staying in the plaintiff’s flat in the previous week- Plaintiff’s witnesses deposed that on
reading the article, they understood of his connections with the gang.
Further in case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers, plaintiff was the wife of a horse
racer, and defendant published a photo with another woman with a sentence about them
announcing there engagement, showing plaintiff in bad picture, thus liable under inuendo
D. Defamation of a class of persons
Any member of the class can sue by proving that they were meant for him
There must be something in the word and the manner of publication which shows the
plaintiff was the target of the attack
A partnership firm cannot sue because a firm name is merely a compendious artificial
name adopted by the partnership & is not itself a legal entity. But a individual partner
may personally sue if defamed.
You might also like
- Understanding the Law of Torts in IndiaNo ratings yetUnderstanding the Law of Torts in India59 pages
- Understanding Torts and Legal LiabilityNo ratings yetUnderstanding Torts and Legal Liability42 pages
- Understanding Torts: Types and Liabilities100% (1)Understanding Torts: Types and Liabilities12 pages
- Understanding Trespass and Assault LawsNo ratings yetUnderstanding Trespass and Assault Laws40 pages
- Understanding Intentional and Negligent Torts100% (1)Understanding Intentional and Negligent Torts48 pages
- Assault, Battery, and False ImprisonmentNo ratings yetAssault, Battery, and False Imprisonment26 pages
- Introduction to Tort Law and DefinitionsNo ratings yetIntroduction to Tort Law and Definitions10 pages
- Defenses to Intentional Torts ExplainedNo ratings yetDefenses to Intentional Torts Explained11 pages
- Understanding Assault as an Intentional TortNo ratings yetUnderstanding Assault as an Intentional Tort9 pages
- Trespass to Person: Assault & Battery ExplainedNo ratings yetTrespass to Person: Assault & Battery Explained6 pages
- Torts Law Summary: Key Concepts ExplainedNo ratings yetTorts Law Summary: Key Concepts Explained15 pages
- Understanding Torts: Assault, Battery, DefamationNo ratings yetUnderstanding Torts: Assault, Battery, Defamation14 pages
- Intentional Torts and Business Law OverviewNo ratings yetIntentional Torts and Business Law Overview7 pages
- Understanding Intentional Torts ExplainedNo ratings yetUnderstanding Intentional Torts Explained36 pages
- Understanding Business Torts and LiabilityNo ratings yetUnderstanding Business Torts and Liability10 pages
- Assault, Battery, and False ImprisonmentNo ratings yetAssault, Battery, and False Imprisonment37 pages
- Competition Act 2002 Comprehensive NotesNo ratings yetCompetition Act 2002 Comprehensive Notes32 pages
- Harshil Agrotech Q4 FY2025 Financial ResultsNo ratings yetHarshil Agrotech Q4 FY2025 Financial Results9 pages
- Disability Inclusion in Bangladesh JudiciaryNo ratings yetDisability Inclusion in Bangladesh Judiciary21 pages
- Iowa Tenant Rights: Trespass Case ReviewNo ratings yetIowa Tenant Rights: Trespass Case Review19 pages
- GCF Regional Presence Host Selection TermsNo ratings yetGCF Regional Presence Host Selection Terms12 pages
- Construction Contracts & Revenue Recognition GuideNo ratings yetConstruction Contracts & Revenue Recognition Guide6 pages
- Public vs. Private Education in VenezuelaNo ratings yetPublic vs. Private Education in Venezuela3 pages
- Admissibility of WhatsApp Evidence in CourtNo ratings yetAdmissibility of WhatsApp Evidence in Court2 pages
- Chapter 2: Rights in the Indian ConstitutionNo ratings yetChapter 2: Rights in the Indian Constitution2 pages
- Appeal on Liquidation Costs in IBC CaseNo ratings yetAppeal on Liquidation Costs in IBC Case19 pages
- ECHR Decision on Judge Bîrsan's ImmunityNo ratings yetECHR Decision on Judge Bîrsan's Immunity4 pages