C H A P T E R 16

Criminal Law : Section 499,

Indian Penal C ode
T H E C R IM IN A L law o f defam ation in India is codified, and is enum erated in
section 499 o f the Indian Penal Code.

A n aggrieved person has bo th the rem edies—civil and crim inal.1 H e is n o t

com pelled to make a choice between the tw o. I f he h as filed a crim inal p ro se-
cution, he can still file a civil suit fo r dam ages fo r defam ation, even though the
prosecution is still pending. In fact, if he waits too long, the civil action may
becom e tim e-barred. W ithdraw al o f a crim inal com plaint on tender o f apology
is no bar to civil action fo r libel unless there is a specific agreem ent b arring a
civil action.*
D efam ation as an ofTcnce is dealt w ith in section 499 o f the Indian Penal
C ode. T h e main paragraph o f the scction defines w hat is “ defam atio n” . In
essence, it is an action causing h arm to the repu tatio n o f a person, by m aking
a n im putation. Tw o explanations to th e section (the first and second) deal w ith
defam ation o f a deceased person and defam ation o f a group o f persons, res-
pectively. T he th ird explanation to the scction deals w ith an im putation in the
form o f an alternative, o r expressed ironically. T he m eaning o f “ harm to
reputation” is dealt w ith in the fo u rth explanation.

D efin itio n o f D e fa m a tio n

Com ing to the definition, a person com m its defam ation w hen, by words
either spoken o r intended to be read, o r by signs o r by visible representations,
he makes o r publishes any im putation concerning any person, intending to
harm o r know ing or having reason to believe th at such im putation will harm ,
the reputation o f such person— unless the case falls w ithin one o f th e excep-
tions. As a point o f com parison, it will be noted th at in civil law, the to rt o f
defam ation consists in the publication w ithout lawful justification o f a false
statem ent, tending to low er a person in th e estim ation o f right thinking people
generally, or tending to m ake them shun o r avoid him ; briefly, defam ation is a
statem ent tending to bring a person into hatred , ridicule o r contem pt. T he
elem ent o f ridicule, though n o t m entioned in th e m ain paragraph o f section
499, is dealt with in the fo urth explanation to the section.

1. A soke Kumar v. Radha Kanto. A .I.R . 1967 C al. 17* at 183, para 20.
2. Covinda Charyulu v. Scshagiri Rao, A .I.R . 1941 Mad. 860 at 861.
 Crim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 75

Deceased Persons and Groups

Im puting an ything to a deceased person may am o u n t to defam ation if it
w ould harm the repu tatio n o f th a t person if living and is intended to be h u rt-
ful to the feelings o f his fam ily o r o th er near relatives. A n im putation co n -
cerning a com pany o r an association or collection o f persons as such n ay also
am oun t to defam ation.
The first explanation dealing w ith defam ation o f the dcccased, is o f great
interest. The tw o parts o f the first explanation to scction 499 arc to be read
together. The im p utation m ust n ot only harm the rep utation o f the deceased
*• person concerned if living, bu t m ust also be intended to be h u rtfu l to the
feelings o f the m em bers o f his fam ily or o th e r relatives.3

H arm ing Reputation

The m eaning o f “ harm ing a person's repu tatio n ” is explained in the
fo u rth explanation to section 499. T h e im putation m ust directly o r indircctly,
in th e estim ation o f others,— (a) low er the m oral o r intellectual charactcr o f
that person, or (b) low er the character o f th a t person in respect o f his caste or
o f his calling, or (c) lower th e credit o f th a t person, o r (d) cause it to be
believed th a t the body o f th a t person is in a loathsom e state, o r in a state
generally considered as disgraceful. T he m eaning o f this explanation was spelt
out in a C alcutta case4 by L ahiri, J., as und er :
In my opinion this explanation does aw ay with m uch o f th e fine distinc-
tions under th e English law an d seems to im ply th a t w hat constitutes
defam ation has to be determ ined not upon an interpretation that may be
found for a w ord by a laborious research in a court o f law, b ut upon the
m eaning th a t m ight be conveyed by th e w ord to a reasonable an d fair-
minded m an. I am prepared to concede th a t a m eaning th a t m ight be co n -
veyed to a m orbid o r suspicious mind cannot be taken into acco u n t fo r
this purpose. T he word ‘others’ in the explanation refers in my opinion to
a reasonable and fair-m inded m an and n o t to a m an w ith a m orbid or
suspicious m ind.5
T h e explanation speaks inter alia o f “castc” .
So long as caste prevails, an attem p t to minimise o r ignore existing sanc-
tions is contrary to the public good. I f a person is really out-casted, a state-
m ent to the m em bers o f the b ro th erh ood th a t he was out-casted is the kind o f
statem ent con tem p lated by the expression fo r the public good.®

3. N.J. Nanporia v. Brojendra Bhowmick. (1975) 79 C .W .N . 531.

4. Dcbajyoti Burman v. The State, I.L R. (1957) 2 Cal. 181.
5. Id. at 191.
6 Umed Singh v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1924 AH. 299 at 301 (case o f slander) (per
W alsh, J.).
76 Law o f Defam ation : Som e AspectS

C o n c e p t o f G oo d F a ith
C om ing to the cxccptions to scction 499, the first observation to be made
is that m ost o f them require “ good faith” . T he definition o f “ good fa ith " 7 in
th e Indian lJenal C ode provides th a t nothing is said to be done o r believed in
good faith which is done o r believed w ith o ut due care and attention. The
definition in the code seem s to super-im pose the conccpt o f due care and atte n -
tion on th a t o f honesty o f purpose. In o th e r w ords, honesty o f purpose is cer-
tainly required. In ad dition, due care an d attention m ust also be present in
ord er to constitute good faith. T h e elem ent o f good faith is o f particular
im portance to persons engaged in the profession o f media. T o illustrate this,
tw o decisions m ay be cited. In a case which w ent upto th e Privy Council,*
th e accused, the ed itor of a new spaper, published an article alleging th a t the
district m agistrate, in discharging a m ilitary officer fo r the offcnce o f rape, had
com m itted a breach o f tru st and was unw orthy o f the position he held. In fact,
the Lieutenant G overnor o f the Province had exonerated the district magis-
trate; and the editor did n ot produce any fresh inform ation on the basis o f
which he had m ade the allegation. H ence the plea th at th e publication was
m ade in good faith did n o t succccd. In th e second [Link] which is com paratively
m ore recent,* there was a reckless co m m ent in a new spaper article th a t " th e
prosecuting s ta ll'a t A lig arh " was co rru p t. N o instances o f bribciy had been
cited, and good faith was, therefore, held to be absent.
A nother general p oint concerning the exceptions to section 499 m ay be
noted, [Link], th a t the exceptions are exhaustive and no exception derived
fro m English law or from any o ther source m ay be engrafted th e reu p o n .10 O f
course, besides the specific exceptions given in the scction, account m u st be
taken o f the general exceptions to crim inal liability given in the code-11 F o r
exam ple, if a person is, by threats o f instant d e a th , forced to m ake a defam a-
tory statem ent, he is im m une fro m crim inal liability under one o f the general
exceptions.1* A n im portan t exception, previously d ealt w ith in a ce n tral A ct
which had a fluctuating history an d which is now incorporated in the C on stitu -
tion, protects statem ents made by way o f publication o f proceedings o f P arlia-
m ent and state legislatures,13 provided there is no malice.

Parliam entary Proceedings

F urther, the C onstitution, in articles 105 and 194, protects statem ents

7. S. 52, i.p.C .
8. Charming Arnold v. King-Empcror. A .I.R . 1914 P.C. 116.
9. Sahib Singh v. S ta te o /U .P ., A .I.R . 1965 S.C. 1451 at 1467, para 11.
10 Satish v. Ram, A .I.R . 1921 Cal. 1. See also infra, p. 78.
I I. Ss. 76 to 106 o f th e I.P.C.
12 Id., s. 94.
13. A it. 3ulA , C onstitution o f India, inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment
Act with cffcct from 20 June, 1979.
C rim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 77

m ade by m em bers durin g the course o f proceedings in Parliam ent o r legislature.14

M alicc docs no t take away this protection (for m em bers o f Parliam ent, etc.).
B ut it w ould take aw ay the protection fo r publication outside Parliam ent, etc.
o f the concerncd proceedings, sincc the protection for such publication is,
under the C o nstitutio n ,15 dependent on absence o f malicc.

Exceptions
T he ten exceptions to section 499 o f the Indian Penal C ode, protect the
following classcs o f statem ents from crim inal liability for defam ation. They
are briefly stated an d analysed below :
F irst exception : T rue statem ent m ade o r published for the public good .1*
Second exception : O pinion expressed in good faith respecting th e conduct
o f a public servant in the discharge o f his public functions o r respecting his
character, so far as his charactcr appears in th a t conduct, an d no fu rth e r
T hird exception : O pinion expressed in good faith respecting th e conduct
o f any person touching any public question, and respecting his character,
so far as his character appears in th a t conduct, an d no further.
F o u rth exception : P ublication o f a substantially true rep o rt o f the p ro -
ceedings o f a court o f justice o r o f th e result o f any such proceedings. [Such
publication m ay, how ever, constitute som e o th e r offence un d er a statutory p ro -
vision regulating the reporting o f judicial proceedings].
Fifth exception : O pinion expressed in good faith respecting the m erits o f
any case dccidcd by a co urt o f justice o r respecting the conduct o f any person
as a party, witness o r agent in an y such case o r respecting th e charactcr o f such
person, so far as his character appears in th a t conduct, and no further.
Sixth exception : O pinion expressed in good faith respecting the m erits of
any perform ance w hich its a u th o r has subm itted to the ju d g m en t o f th e public
o r respecting the character o f th e au th o r, so far as his character appears in
such perform ance and no further.

Seventh exception : Censure passed in good faith on the conduct o f a

person by a person having au th ority over him (conferred by law o r arising o u t
o f a lawful con tract) where the conduct is in m atters to w hich such lawful
autho rity relates.
Eighth exception : A ccusation preferred in good faith against any person
to one w ho has lawful auth ority over th a t person with rcspcct to the subject
m atter o f the accusation.

14. Cf. Tcj Kiran v. Sanjtva Reddy, A .I.R . 1970 S.C. 1573 at 1574.
15. A rt. 36IA. C onstitution o f India.
16. G ood fuith is no t required under the first exception, but tru th is; contrast the ninth
exception where tru th is not required, but good faith is.
h Law o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

N inth exception : Im putation on the charactcr o f an o th er made in good

faith for the protection o f th e interests o f the person m aking it, o r o f any o ther
person, o r for th e public g o od .17
Tenth exception : C aution conveyed in good faith to one person against
anoth er an d intended for the good o f the person to w hom it is conveyed, o r of
som e person in w hom th a t person is interested, o r fo r the public good.

In India, in crim inal eases, questions o f privilege (in a prosecution for

defam ation) are determ ined exclusively by the provisions o f the Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, an oral statem ent m ade by an accuscd person before the
court carrics only a qualified privilege un der th e ninth exception to section 499
o f th e Indian Penal C ode.18
Belief is n o t a basis o f privilege. F o r exam ple exception 9 to section 499
cannot be read as m eaning th a t if the person m aking the im putation believes in
good fa ith that he has been acting for protecting his interest, then he is n o t
liable. T h e interest m ust exist, objectively an d n ot m erely in the m ind o f the
accuscd. T he expression “ good faith ” used only once in the exception is used
in connection w ith an a c t.19

Retention of Crim inal Liability fo r D efam ation

T he question w hether crim inal liability for defam ation should be retained
has been widely debated in the U nited K ingdom b u t ultim ately the offence o f
crim inal libel, in so far as it punishes defam atory libel, continues still to be
punishable in the U nited K ingdom . It m ay, o f course, be m entioned th a t in the
U nited K ingdom where a new spaper is proposed to be prosecuted fo r libel, it
is ncccssary to obtain the pcrinissiuu o f the jud g e in cham bers by virtue o f a
specific statutory provision m eant for new spapers.20 Lord Shawcross has been
one o f the strong advocates o f abolishing crim inal liability fo r libel altogether,
o r o f allow ing a right o f appeal against th e decision o f a jud g e to grant
leave for a libel prosecution against a new spaper.71 But no such am endm ent
o f the law has been carried out. In fact, strong views have been expressed in
the U nited K ingdom against proposals fo r ab o lition o f th e offence.
In an editorial in the London Tim es** it was suggested th a t crim inal libel
ought to be restricted to cases w here it creates a risk o f breach o f the peace.
But the suggestion has n ot been accepted in the U nited K ingdom . A gainst the

17. T ruth is not required, but good faith is; contrast the first exception,
18. Champa Devi v. Pirbhu Lai, A I.R . 1926 All. 287.
19. tihola Nath v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1929 All. 1. 8.
20. S. 8 o f the Law o f Libel Am endm ent A ct, 1888.
21. Lord Shawcross. article in The Times, 26th M ay , 1977.
22. Leading a rticlc. The Times, 15 M a y , 1977, referred to by J.R . Spencer, The Press
and the R eform o f C rim inal Libel in G lazcbrook (ed.), Reshaping the Criminal Law
266*284 (1978).
Criminal Law Section 499 Indian Penal Code 79
p o int o f view m ade in the suggestion in the London Tim es editorial, it could be
argued th a t d eliberate character assassination and the wild dissem ination of
defam atory m atter by cranks, are surely evils w orth suppressing, w hether or
n o t the person defam ed is likely to resort to unlaw ful violence by way of
retaliation.
It should also be pointed o u t that there are practical reasons for continu-
ing the offence o f defam ation on the statute boo k, n o t the least o f these being
the consideration th a t attem pts at character assassination have to be checked
by effective means. T hese are purposeful attem p ts to harm people by spread-
ing deliberate lies ab o u t them . In m ost civil law countries, it may be m en-
tioned, defam ation is prim arily a m atter for crim inal law, and only second-
arily a civil action.13

F irst Exception
W hat is know n as the defence o f “justification” in the contcxt o f the law
o f defam ation is dealt with in the first exception to section 499 o f th e Indian
Penal Code, w hich provides as un d er :
It is not defam ation to im pute anything which is true concerning
any person, if it be for the public good th a t the im putation should be
made o r published. W hether o r n o t it is for the public good is a question
o f fact.
It needs to be pointed o u t th at this exception imposes tw o conditions to be
satisfied by the defam atory statem ent, if it is to receive the protection o f the
law. In th e first place, th e im putation m ust be true*4 and , secondly, the m aking
o r publication o f th e im putation should be for the public good. In this respect,
the position differs in crim inal and civil law, respectively. Im m unity from
civil liability for defam ation exists, once it is proved th a t the statem ent is subs-
tantially true.*5 “ Public good” is n o t an essential clem ent fo r im m unity in civil
liability—unlike the position as regards crim inal liability.
A n A llahabad case how ever takes a wide view o f the exceptions to
section 499.*51 In an application before a m agistrate for the appoin tm en t o f a
M ukhia , there was a statem ent m ade th a t a particular person was o f “ bad
charactcr” and “ a previous convict” . He com plained o f defam ation. The
defencc o f tru th was put forth. N o previous conviction was proved against
him , thou gh it was proved th a t he had com m itted adultery with his sister-in-
law, by w hom he h ad also an illegitim ate child. It was held th at th e offence o f
adultery under scction 497 o f the Indian Penal C ode was a serious crim inal

23. See J.R . Spenccr. i b i d , Strom holm , Right o f Privacy and the R ights o f the
Personality 132, p a ra 82 and p. 154, para 101 (1967).
24. Chandrasekhara v. K arthikeyan, A .I.R . 1964 K erala 277 (creating a doubt is not
enough)
25. Duncan A Neill, Defamation 55, para 11.03 (1978).
25a. Emperor v. Murat Singh, A .I.R 1934 All. 904, 905.
80 Law o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

offence, an d, therefo re, even if there was a statem ent ab out conviction which
was n o t literally established, the evidence showed th a t he ou ght to have been
convictcd under scction 497, thus indicating th a t th e statem ent was substantially
true. Therefore, the exception was held to be applicable.
It is also to be noted that the exception un der discussion docs n o t require
good faith as an essential condition o f th e im m unity. This is presum ably for
the reason th a t th e requirem ent o f public good may be regarded as sufficient
enough to justify the publication o f a true (though d efam atory) statem ent.!<

Concept of Public Good

T he conccpt o f public good, it should be no ted , is not confined to the first
exception. It appears in express term s in th e n in th and tenth exceptions to the
scction also. In a sense, it may be said to underlie some o f the o th er excep-
tions to scction 499 also, such as th e second, fo u rth an d fifth exceptions,
relating respectively to statem ents concerning the public conduct o f public
servants, publication o f reports o f judicial proceedings and com m ents on the
m erits o f a case decided in court and th e conduct o f witnesses and others con-
cerned in relation to that case. In fact, in the law o f obscenity, section 292 o f
the Indian Penal C ode as am ended in 1969, contains an exception w hercunder
the scction docs n o t extend to —
(a) any book, pam phlet, paper, w riting, draw ing, painting, representation
o r figure
(/) the publication o f which is proved to be justified as being for the
public good on the ground th at such book, pam phlet, paper,
writing, draw ing, painting, representation o r figure is in the
interest o f science, literature, a rt o r learning o r o th er objccts o f
general concern.
R egarding the ingredient o f tru th , required by the first exception to
section 499 tw o propositions are w orth n othing :
(/) on the one hand, w here truth is set up as a defencc, it m ust extend to
the entire libel,27 and (ii) on the o ther hand, tru th o f the allegation
need n o t be literally proved. It is enough if it is substantially proved.28
H ow ever, if there is a d o u b t w hether the m atter in question is true or not,
th ere is no protection.*9

In a case30 the A llahabad High C ourt, while dismissing the plea o f justifi-
cation on the facts, dcscribcd it as a “ dangerous plea” . Its observations are

26. At comm on law, truth was not a defence in crim inal proceedings for libel. S. 6
o f the Libel Act, 1843 m ade the change (by requiring tru th and public benefit).
27. Chandrasekhara P illai v. Karthikevan, supra note 24 at 283.
28. Labouchere : 14 Cox 419, cited by Gaur, Penal Code 4080, para 24, (1973),
29. Lalmohan Singh v. King, A .I.R . 1950 C al. 339.
30. M ohammad N azir v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1928 All. 321.
Crim inal Law ; Section 499 Indian Penal Code 81

lucid and p e r tin e n t:

T he defendant in proceedings fo r defam ation w hether in a suit o r under
S. 500, I.P .C ., is usually in a delicate an d difficult position . . . . The first
step to consider is w hat is the exact nature c f the defence th a t can be set
up. . . . T he facts may be so stro n g th a t occasionally it m ay happen th at
the counsel can advise the client to “justify” . . . . T h a t m ost dangerous
plea should never be p u t forw ard unless there is practical certainty o f
success.81

Second Exception
T he second exception to section 499 provides th at it is n ot defam ation to
express in good faith any opinion w hatever respecting the conduct o f a public
servant in the discharge o f his public functions, o r respecting his character so
far a t his charactcr appears in th at conduct and no further.
It is generally understood that the second, third , sixth and ninth excep-
tions to section 499 em body the defence com pcdiously know n as “ fair com -
m ent.” 82 So viewed, these exceptions d o n o t cover assertions o f fact, b ut only
expressions o f opinion. Facts alleged m ust be proved to be true. It is n ot
enough for th e accused to say th a t he honestly believed those facts. C om m ent,
m ust be on real, an d not on im agined, facts.88
It is also nccessary to bear in mind th a t it is one thing to com m ent upon
th e proved act o f a public servant, and an o th er to say th a t he has been guilty
o f a p articular act o f m isconduct o r m isappropriation. This is illustrated by a
case from Pepsu involving the editor o f the vfcekly M alw a G azette, published
from P atiala.81
. ~ *
T he M adhya Pradesh High C o urt in a case88 while observing th at a
new spaper w riter should be m ore cautious than i private individual, deals with
th e requirem ents o f the defence available u n d er the second and third exceptions
to section 499 : •
(/) T he facts (on which com m cnt is offered) should be substantially true.
[ii) T he com m ents should be fair, in the sense th at they are inspired by a
genuine desire on th e p art o f the w riter to serve the public interest, and n o t by
any intention o f w reaking private spite.
(iii) T he criticism , even if callcd for by the facts, should be in public
interest, and should n o t be malicious. It is for the accuscd to show that these
requirem ents are satisfied. ^

31. Id. i t 325.

32. R. Sankar v. The S ta te , A .I.R . 1959 K erala 100, 102,103, para 12.
33. Ibid.
34. T.G. Goswanti v. The S ta le , A .I.R . 1952 Padsu 165, 168.
35. Purushottam Vijay v. S ta le, A .I.R . 1961 h \ P . 205, 208, 210, 211, 212.
82 Law o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

T he M adhya Pradesh case involved an editorial in th e daily Indore Sam a-

char which im puted regional bias in the m atter o f granting successive extensions
to a n officer and his contem plated app o intm ent as inspector general o f police.
The editorial was per se defam atory o f the m inister in chargc o f the
departm ent. However, the s e t o f th e accused was held to be w ithin the am bit
o f “ fair com m ent” , an d was saved by the second and third exceptions to
section 499. In so holding, th e H igh C o urt pointed o u t, it is in the public
interest th a t anything shaky o r unjust or im proper in a m inister’s conduct
should be brought to th e noticc o f the co untry a t large.
T he concept o f “ fair com m ent” was further analysed in a N ag p ur case8*
w hich points o u t th a t the com m ents m ust be based on facts truly stated, m ust
n o t contain im putations o f co rrup t o r dishonest motives to the person whose
conduct o r w ork is being criticised (save in so far as such im putations are
w arranted by the facts) an d m ust be an honest expression o f th e w riter’s real
opinion.

Second Exception as invoked by the P ress

A few o ther cases involving new spapers have been rep orted under the
second cxccption to section 499. G enerally, one finds the co u rts pointing o ut
th a t the press has no special privileges as such. T here are even p ronounce-
m ents that new spapers m ust be m ore cautious than ordinary persons in publish-
ing defam atory m atter.37 It has also been pointed o u t th a t the defencc o f fair
com m cnt docs n o t extend to defam atory allegations o f fact. This is illustrated
by an O udh ease.38 A jail superintendent was accused by the editor o f a news-
paper o f having ill-treated prisoners in the jail- It was em phasised by the court
th a t the new spaper editor, accuscd o f defam ation, m ust show th a t he had
reasonable grounds for believing the allegation to be tru e and th at the person
now com plaining o f defam ation was responsible fo r m ism anagem ent, an d th a t
th a t person could have rem edied the m ism anagem ent, b u t preferred n ot to do
so, being (as was alleged) naturally disposed to cruelty.
A new spaper editor cannot publish m atter which is know n to be a half-
tru th . T hus, to say th a t a person has been sent to be prosecuted, when one
knows that the prosecution had been ordered to be w ithdraw n, w ould be
defam atory. A person publishing such an im putation cannot enjoy im munity
on the ground th a t the im putation was m ade in good faith for the public
good.3>

36. N.B. Khare v. M R . Massani. A .I.R . 1942 Nag. 117, 118 (Vivian Bose. J.).
37. T.G. Goswami v. The State, supra note 34.
38. Rama Rao v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1 ^ 3 O u d h |l, 8, 9, 10.
39. Imperatrix v. B. Kakde, I.L .R . 4 Bom 298 (1880).
 Crim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 83

Third Exception
W hile the sccond exception to section 499 is confincd to the criticism o f
public servants, th e th ird cxccption to the section em braces a m uch wider area
o f fair com m ent by providing th a t it is n o t defam ation to express any opinion
w hatever respecting the conduct o f any person touching any public question,
and respecting his character, ‘‘so far as his charactcr appears in th a t conduct,
and no fu rth e r” .
This exception thus has a positive as well as a negative aspect. The
positive aspect being concerned w ith the situations where th e exception applies,
and the negative aspect being concerned w ith the lim itations to which the
exception is subject. Besides the rep orted decisions, th e exception itself p ro -
vides an illustration elucidating its scope an d limitations.
T o take, first, th e illustration appended below the third exception, states
th a t it is n o t defam ation 'vm a person) to express in good faith any opinion
w hatever respecting the conduct o f an o th er person—
(a) in petitioning the governm ent on a public question
{b) in signing a requisition fo r a m eeting on a public question
(c) in presiding or attend in g a t such meeting,
(d) in form ing o r joining any society which invites the public su ppo rt, o r
(e) in voting o r canvassing fo r a particular candidate fo r any situation in
the efficient discharge o f th e duties in which the public is interested.
R eported decisions point o u t th a t if ari*<occasion is privileged, it is not
necessary to justify every detail provided the gist o f the libel is correct. W here,
in a new spaper rep o rt, th e main assertion is true, mere exaggeration does not
take aw ay th e privilege un der th e third cxccption.40 A n articlc in a newspaper
which is a fair com m cnt on public affairs an d m erely an expression o f opinion
is im m une unless it is proved to be th e outcom e o f a dishonest o r co rru pt
m otive.41

Lim itations of the Third Exception

W hile these decisions illustrate the positive operation o f the third excep-
tion, a few o ther decisions po int out its lim itations. In th e first place, good
faith is an essential ingredient o f the cxccption (and. as defined in section 52),
requires due care an d attention. Therefore a w riter is n o t justified in repeating
highly defam atory statem ents based upon m is-statem ents o f facts.4*
A good deal o f light is throw n upon the scope and lim itations o f the third
cxccption by repo rted decisions relating to the liability o f new spapers. There

40. Aluriidhar Jeranuias v. Narayendas, A .I.R . 1914 Sind 85, 86, 87.
41. Subroya A iy a r v. Kadar Rowi/ian AbduRgadar, A .I.R . 1914 M ad. 352, 353.
42. Abbcsi v. Em peror, A .I.R . 1941 Sind 92, 93, 95, 96.
84 Lnw o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

is, for exam ple, an interesting case from M ysore.48 T he death of a person had
becom e a public question. T he ed ito r o f a K annada paper Aashavadi published
an article, expressing an opinion in respect o f the conduct o f the com plainant
touching th a t question. T he third exception was held to apply. In the absence
o f a dishonest o r co rru p t m otive, an articlc in a new spaper which is a fair com -
m ent on public affairs is protected, as was em phasised in a M adras case.44 Even
exaggeration is excusable, if there is no deliberate m isrepresentation or suppres-
sion o f facts.
H ow ever, the com m ent m ust be based on facts. A w riter in a new spaper
cannot invent facts. On this principle, it has been held th a t to assert th at a
ccrtain person makes gifts to certain funds not o u t o f motives o f charity but
from m otives o f self-advantage, w ould be defam atory. It w ould seem to m ake
n o difference that the w riting is published in a new spaper. The conduct o f a
public m an cannot be labelled as dishonest simply because th e w riter fancies
(that) such conduct is open to suspicion.46

Newspapers and the Q uestion of Good Faith

Since m any o f the im p o rtan t exceptions to scction 499 require good faith
as a condition o f im m unity, editorial good faith becomes a crucial factor in the
determ ination o f the crim inal liability o f a new spaper for defam ation. This is
illustrated by a Suprem e C o urt decision o f 1965. • T he case involved a news-
p aper articlc in the Kaliyug o f A ligarh, containing defam atory statem ents
against public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors. From the tenor of
the articlc, no evidence o f an object o f advancing the public good was establi-
shed, and there was also no evidence to show th a t the defam atory rem arks
w ere m ade with due care and attention. In th e circum stances, neither the
third n or the n inth exception to section 499 applied. T he court, in its ju d g -
m ent, stressed the great pow er o f th e press in im pressing the public m ind.
T hus, so far as the abstract principles o f liability arc concerned, newspapers
stand in the sam e position as others, and are required to com ply with the
essential ingredients o f th e statutory exception on which rcliancc m ay be placed
in a particular case. H owever, even w here, owing to non-com pliance with
essential ingredients o f im m unity, crim inal liability arises, the courts can still
view the m atter with sym pathy while considering th e quantum o f punishm ent
to be aw arded to new spapers. This is illustrated by a ease from Travancore-
C ochin, involving a paper having a rath er poo r circulation.47 The case was
one o f com plaint made by a private person for the publication o f a libel con-
taining a chargc o f bribery against a m agistrate. The trial court had acquitted

43. K. Balakrishna Rao v. Udhaya, (1971) 1 Mys. L.J. 28.

44. Subroya Iye r v. Kadar Row than A bdul Kadar, supra note 41.
45. A pp a v. M aricar, A .I.R . 1918 Lower Burma 36, 40.
46. Sahib S ingh v. S ta te o f U.P., supra note 9 at 1454.
47. S ta te v. Paekiaraj, A .I.R. 1951 Trav-C o 105, 107.
Criminal Law : Scction 499 Indian Penal Code 85

the accuscd o f the ofTcncc o f defam ation; the governm ent appealed against the
decision to the H igh C ourt, and the appeal succccdcd. H owever, the govern-
m ent w as not so m uch interested in th e punishm ent o f the accuscd, as in
securing a decision on a m atter involving the reputation o f a governm ent officer.
In the circum stances, th e High C o u rt decided to im pose only a fine o f one
rupee. The aggrieved officcr, the court observed, could still file a suit for dam -
ages, if he so desired.
T he elem ent o f “ due care an d atten tio n ” required to prove good faith has
also been elaborated in a num ber o f cases. In the absence o f reasonable care
exercised before m aking the im putation, the exception does n o t apply.48 Thus,
in a C alcutta case,49 it was held th at if the accused, w ithout m aking inquiries,
publishes defam atory allegations against a do cto r (charging th e d o ctor with
drugging a patient), he cann o t claim the protection o f the ninth exception to
section 499, m erely on the ground th a t th e public good was involved. This
illustrates the stringent requirem ents o f th e exception. The m aterial published
was flimsy; hence good faith was n o t proved.

Fourth Exception
T o com e now to the fo u rth exception to section 499, it provides th a t it
is not defam ation to publish a substantially true rep o rt o f the proceedings o f a
co u rt o r o f th e result o f any such proceedings. [Link] explanation to the excep-
tion provides th a t a justice o f the peace o r o th e r officer holding an inquiry in
open co u rt prelim inary to a trial in a court o f justicc is a “ co u rt” w ithin the
m eaning o f the above exception. The practical im portance o f the explanation
is alm ost nil, since com m itm ent proceedings arc now form al in character.
It has bceu held** by the C alcutta H igh C ou rt th a t it is no t ncccssary under
this exception th a t the proceedings o f the co u rt should be published contem po-
raneously. F u rth er, the publication need n ot be true word by w ord, b ut should
give a substantially true account o f the proceedings. Finally, good faith is not
an ingredient o f th e exception. T he C alcutta decision is, o f course, correct on
th e w ording o f th e exception as it stands. H owever, since it is not necessary
th a t the proceedings should be published contem poraneously (even a delayed
publication w ould be protected), and “ good faith” is also n o t an essential in-
gredient o f the exception,51 the present position does leave som e scope fo r raking
u p old trials w hich led to the conviction o f a person in the distant past, with
the result th a t even after the episode is over and the proceedings have n o topical
interest at all, one can publish accounts o f such trials after years an d thereby
dam age the repu tation o f the convicted person. In som e countries, such a

48. Ibid.
49. Superintendent A Remembrancer o f Legal Affairs v. P C. Ghosh, A .I.R . 1924 Cal.
611, 614.
50. Anitada Prosad v. M anotosan Roy, A .I.R . 1953 Cal. 503, 504.
51. Ibid.
86 Law o f D efam ation : Som e Aspects

situation is taken carc o f by allow ing an action for violation o f privacy. In

India, it is not, in the present position, possible to seek such relief.5*

Fifth Exception
W hile the fourth exception to section 499 is concerned with the factual
reporting o f proceedings before a co u rt the fifth exception deals with com m ents
expressed on the m erits o f a case w hich h as been already decided in a court or
com m ents relating to the conduct o f parties an d witnesses in any such case. It
is not defam ation to express in good faith any opinion w hatever respecting—
(a) th e m erits o f any case, civil o r crim inal, which has been decided by
a court, o r
( b) the conduct o f any person as a ra rty , witness or agent, in any such
proceeding, or
(c) the charactcr o f such person, so far as his charactcr a p p fars in th at
conduct, an d no further.
T w o illustrations to the exception elucidate its scope an d lim itations. Illus-
tra tio n (a), which relates to com m ent o n the conduct o f a witness, states th at a
statem ent th a t the evidence o f a person a t the trial “ is so contradictory
that he m ust be stupid o r dishonest” , if m ade in good faith, is w ithin the
exception, since it is an opinion expressed respecting th a t person's charactcr
as it appears in his conduct as a witness, and no fu rther. In contrast with this,
illustration (b) to th e exception states the case w here the statem ent m ade is :
“ I d o n o t believe w hat Z asserted at the trial, because 1 know him to be a man
w ithout veracity ’. T o this case, the exception does n o t apply because the
opinion expressed about the charactcr o f Z is n o t founded upon his conduct as a
witness. In such a case, the opinion has already been form ed and prcccdes the
assessm ent o f the conduct. T o p ut it differently, the opinion about charactcr,
already form ed, leads to the opinion ab ou t the witness’s conduct in the parti-
cular trial, and n o t vice versa. T he tw o illustrations, read together, indicate
with a fair m easure o f clarity the requirem ent connoted by the w ord ‘‘as far as
his character appears in th a t conduct and no furth er” . Incidentally, this require-
m ent is found not only in th e fifth exception, but also in the second, third and
sixth exceptions to th e scction.
T he auth ors o f the Indian Penal C ode have tried to explain at length the
rationale o f the exception.5* But there is hardly any case law on the fifth excep-
tion. P resum ably, cases involving the m erits o f a decision o f a co u rt (falling
under the first p art o f the fifth exception), w ould m ostly involve issues belong-
ing to the region o f the law o f con tem p t o f court, rath er than to the law of
defam ation As regards the o th er parts o f the exception, in India, com m ents
respecting the conduct o f witnesses and parties d o not appear frequently in

52. Point fo r consideration.

S3 See Ratan Lai, Law oj Crime (1971), citing d raft Penal Code, note R.
Crim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 87

new spapers o r periodical writings, and this seems to account fo r the paucity o f
case law. Probably, th e strictness o f the law o f contem pt o f court m ight have
had a chilling effect on the publication o f com m ents relating to cases decided
in a court. In any case, the fifth exception docs not need further discussion.

S ixth Exception

One can now proceed to the sixth exception to section 499. A m ention
has been made above that som e segments o f “ fair com m cnt” are covered by
the second and third exceptions to section 499. A very wide segment is taken
care o f by the sixth exception, concerned with com m ents on th e m erits o f a
public perform ance. A n opinion expressed in good faith respecting the m erits
o f any perform ance which its a u th o r has subm itted to the judgm ent o f the
public is exem pt from crim inal liability. A sim ilar im m unity is conferred o n an
opinion expressed in good faith respecting the character o f the au th o r so far
as his charactcr appears in such perform ance, an d no further.
T he crux o f th e im m unity lies in the requirem ent o f subm ission o f the
w ork to the judgm ent o f the public. The explanation to the cxccption provides
th a t a perform ance m ay be subm itted to the judgm ent o f the public expressly,
o r by acts on the p art o f the a u th o r which imply such subm ission to the ju d g -
ment o f the public. T hus, as is elucidated by illustrations (a), (b ) and (c) to the
exception, a person w ho publishes a book, m akes a spccch in public o r
appears as an ac to r o r singer on a public stage subm its his w ork to the ju d g-
m ent o f the public.
Besides the requirem ent o f submission o f a perform ance to the judgm ent
o f th e public (w hich is discusscd in th e preceding paragraph ), the sixth excep-
tion postulates th a t th e opinion m ust be expressed in good faith, and also th at a
com m cnt respecting the charactcr o f the au th o r o f a w ork is protected only in
so far as his character appears in such perform ance, an d n o fu rth er. This
lim itation is illustrated by illustrations (d) and (e) to the sixth cxccption. T hus,
there is protection fo r a statem ent m ade in good faith in these term s : “ Z 's
book is foolish; Z m ust be a weak m an. Z ’s book is indcccnt; Z m ust be a man
o f im pure m ind.” But there is n o protection fo r a statem ent in these term s :
“ I am no t surprised th a t Z ’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak
man and a libertine.” H ere the opinion expressed ab o u t Z ’s charactcr is not
founded on Z ’s boo k. T he distinction so illustrated is sim ilar to th a t illustrated
by the illustrations to the fifth exception.
N ot m uch case law exists on this particular exception, b ut it is useful to
refer to a Bombay ease,54 w herein it was em phasised th a t the responsibility o f
the critic o f a public perform ance, w here he seeks to rely on the defence o f fair
com m cnt underlying this exception, is to be gauged by the effcct which his

54. Emperor v. Abdool Wadood A hm ed, I.L-R , 31 Bom. 293 (1907).

88 Law o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

com m cnt is calculated to produce, and not by (w hat he says was) his intention.
It was also pointed o u t th at the object o f the sixth cxccption is that the public
should, in its evaluation o f a perform ance subm itted to public judgm ent, be
aided by a com m ent on th at perform ance. Hencc, the com m ent m ust make it
clear th a t the judgm ent o f the public is sought to be aided only o n such
evidence as is supplied by th e public perform ance.
The dcfcnce o f fair com m ent under the sixth exception to section 499
ii available as m uch to new spapers, as to others. A t the same tim e, newspapers
d o n o t enjoy a higher protection than ordinary citizens — a protection well
em phasised by the Privy Council55 in a crim inal appeal heard by it, from C al-
cu tta w here the following observations occur :
T heir Lordships regret to find th a t there appeared on the one side in this
case the tim e-w orn fallacy that som e kind o f privilege attaches to the pro-
fession o f the Press as distinguished from the m embers o f the public. The
freedom o f th e journalist is an ordinary p a rt o f the freedom o f the subject,
and to w hatever length the subject in general may go, so also may the
journalist, b ut ap a rt from statute law, his privilege is no o ther and no
higher.5*

Seventh Exception
T o tu rn now to the seventh exception to section 499, it provides th a t it is
not defam ation o f a person having over an o th er any au th o rity , cith er confer-
red by law or arising o u t o f a lawful co ntract m ade with an oth er, to pass in
good faith, any censure on the conduct o f th a t o ther in m atters to which such
lawful auth ority relates. The illustration to the exception gives six instances o f
censure protected by this exception, if good faith is established, as und er : —
(i) a judge censuring the conduct o f a witness o r o f an officer o f the
c o u rt;
(ii) a head o f dep artm en t censuring those w ho are un d er him ;
(iii) a parent ccnsuring his child in the presence o f o th er children ;
(/v) a school m aster, whose au th ority is derived from a p arent censuring
a pupil in the presence o f o th er pupils ;
(v) a m aster ccnsuring a servant for remissness in service ;
(vi) a b an ker censuring the cashier o f his bank fo r the conduct o f the
cashier as such cashier.
Case law under the seventh exception has involved a variety o f situations
such as, a village Panchayat m aking rem arks th a t are prim a fa c ie defam atory;57

55. Charming Arnold v. Kings Emperor, supra note 8 (per Lord Shaw).
56. Id. at 124.
57. K a m la v. Bhagwandas, A .I.R . 1934 Nag. 123, 124.
C rim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 89

a religious head o f a sect issuing an interdict;15 the general m anager o f an

organisation placing before the bo ard o f directors a report m ade by his subordi-
nate officcr which was adverse to an o th er officcr.49 T he decisions, how ever, do
n ot raise any issues requiring detailed discussion o r com m ent.

E ighth Exception
A them e connectcd w ith th e seventh cxccption to scction 499 (censure
passed by the person having lawful autho rity ) is dealt with in the eighth excep-
tion w hich renders im m une the person w ho, in good faith, prefers an accusation
against any person to any o f those w ho have lawful autho rity over th a t person,
w ith respect to th e subjcct m atter o f th e accusation. As the illustration to the
exception tells us, if A , in good faith, (/) accuses Z before a m agistrate, o r (ii)
com plains against Z , a servant, to Z ’s m aster, o r (iii) com plains o f the conduct
o f Z , a child, to h is (the child's) father, A is w ithin the cxccption.
It should be noted th a t good faith and lawful auth o rity are im p o rtan t in-
gredients o f this exception. F ro m the reported decisions on the subject, it
appears th at, in practice, this often turn s o u t to be a crucial issue when the
question to be determ ined is w hether, in the p articular case, th e exception does
o r does n ot apply. T h us, a com plaint m ade to a police constable is n o t p ro -
tected, if good faith is n o t affirm atively proved, o r if the police constable has
no a u th o rity in the m atter. In a N agpur case,60 a w om an made a false repo rt
to the police th a t h er modesty had been outraged by the servants o f A (a
m alguzar) at th e instigation o f A. T he report was held to be defam atory, as
low ering th e com plainant in th e estim ation o f right-thinking persons. A l-
tho ugh h er offence fell under section 211 o f th e Indian Penal C ode (m aking a
false chargc), A was not precluded from proceeding un d er section 500 o f the
code
In an A llahabad case,*1 a w om an m ade certain defam atory and false state-
m ents against a governm ent official and on inquiry, she repeated the same
before the inquiry officer which am ounted to be a publication o f the original
petition. It was h eld th a t th e case was n o t covered either by th e sccond
exception (because it was not a m ere expression o f opinion), o r by the eighth
exception (as there was n o good faith). T he w om an was, therefore, held guilty
o f three separate publications o f libel.
It is also im po rtant to bear in m ind the requirem ent o f “ lawful au thority ”
occurring in the eighth exception. T h us, a co m plaint m ade to the district
panchayat officcr th a t the com plainant’s neighbour was keeping a baw dy house

58. Sukratendra T irth a Swamiar v. Prabhu, A.I R. 1923 Mad. 587, 591.
59. B r ij Ballabh v. S h ri S a tya Dev, A .I.R . 1960 Raj. 213, 214.
60. M l. Binia v. Em peror, A .I.R . 1936 Nag, 240, 242,
61. Jai Debt v. tm p e ro r, A .I.R . 1915 All. 162. 163.
90 Law o f D efam ation : Som e Aspects

is not privileged, since th e panchayat officer had n o lawful authority in the

matter.**
In reported decisions on th e eighth exception, one occasionally com es
across observations o f “ absolute privilege” .** H owever, as was pointed o u t in
a G u jarat case,** the eighth exception docs n ot form ulate any rule o f absolute
privilege. T hus, a statem ent made to a higher au th o rity by way o f com plaint,
an d casting an im putation on th e character o f a co-villager, is privileged only if
the im putation is m ade in good faith, i.e. w ith due care an d attention.*5 The
status o f the privilege enjoyed in crim inal law by witnesses w ho give evidence
in judicial proceedings is th a t o f qualified privilege. T he term “ absolute privi-
lege” , which is used in connection w ith civil liability for such statem ents o r
evidence,** is not quite ap p ro p riate for crim inal liability u n d er section 499. As
was pointed o u t in a M adras ease,*7 in civil courts, witnesses can n ot be sued fop
dam ages for defam ation in respect o f evidence given by them in judicial p ro -
ceedings, but in a crim inal prosecution the question o f absolute privilege docs
n o t arise in view o f scction 499 o f th e Indian Penal Code.*8
So far as new spapers are concem cd, th e eighth exception to section 499
cannot generally be o f m uch im portance, bccausc an accusation before the
publication in a new spaper is n ot th e so rt o f accusation before “ lawful autho*
rity ” contem plated by the exception.*9

Eighth and Ninth Exceptions—Inter-relationship

Interesting questions could arise ab o u t th e inter-relationship o f the eighth
exception w ith th e ninth exception. T h e point o f difference between the tw o is
that while the eighth cxccption requires th a t th e com plaint m ust have been
m ade to a person w ho has lawful au thority to deal with the subject and to take
proceedings against th e person com plaincd against, the n inth exception contains
n o such requirem ent. F or the purpose o f the ninth exception, it is sufficient that
the com m unication is m ade to a person, inter alia, fo r protecting the interest o f
the person w ho is m aking it in which the recipient o f the statem ent m ay also be
interested.76

D efam ation and o ther Related Offences

T here m ay also arise interesting questions as to the inter-relationship of

62. Kanwal Lai v. S ta te o f Punjab, A .I.R . 1963 S .C . 1317, 1318, 1319.

63. G oiap v. Bholanath, I.L.R . 38 Cal. 880, 888 (1911).
64. Gulabchandra Soni v. The S ta le o f Gujarat, A .I.R . 1970 Guj. 171, 173.
65. P. Kam ayva v. K. Tripurantakam , 15 Cri. L.J. 281.
66. Lata Lachman Prasad v. M ajju, A .I.R . 1923 AH. 167 (W alsh, J.).
67. Narayana v. Veerappa. A .I.R . 1951. Mad. 34, 38, 40, para 8-10.
68. F o r earlier cases, see S a tish Chandra v. Ram D oyat, A .I.R . 1921 Cal. 1 (F.B .).
69. Chandrasekhara v. Karthikeyan, supra note 24 at 284;
70. Kanwal Lai v. The S ta te , supra note 62.
Criminal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 91

defam ation with other wrongs and offences. Libellous reflection upon the con-
duct o f a judge in respect o f his judicial duties m ay ccrtainly com c under scction
499, and it m ay be open to the judge to take steps against th e libeller in the
ordinary way for vindication o f his character an d personal dignity as judge; but
such libel m ay o r m ay n o t am o unt to co n tem p t o f co u rt, which is something
m ore than m ere defam ation and is o f a different character. W hat is m ade
punishable in th e Indian Penal C ode is the offence o f defam ation as defamation
an d not as contem pt o f court. I f defam ation o f a subordinate court am ounts
to contem pt o f co u rt, proceedings can certainly be taken under the C o ntem pt
o f C ourts A ct, quite ap a rt from th e fact th a t ano th er rem edy m ay be open to
the aggrieved officer un der section 499.71
Q uestions have also arisen as to the distinction between th e eighth excep-
tion to section 499 an d the proviso to section 132 o f the Evidence A ct. It has
been held that th e proviso to section 132 o f the Evidence A ct, assum es th a t the
accusation contained in the answ er is punishable as defam ation. But no tw ith -
standing th a t position, the proviso excludes a prosecution fo r defam ation, and
bars p ro o f o f the accusation in a trial fo r defam ation. T he proviso to scction
132 o f the Evidence A ct applies even if the statem ent, n o t being m ade in good
faith, is not covered by the eighth exception to section 499.w

N inth Exception
The n inth exception to section 499 confers im m unity from crim inal liabi-
lity where the im putation is made on th e character o f an o th er person —
(a) for the protection o f the interests o f the person m aking the im pu ta-
tion, or
(b) for th e protection o f the interest o f any o th er person, o r
(c) fo r th e public good.
Tw o illustrations below this exception relate to —
(i) a shopkeeper w arning his m anager abou t Z, as to whose honesty the
shopkeeper has no opinion, and
( i i ) a m agistrate m aking a rep o rt to his ow n superior officcr, casting an
im putation on th e ch aracter o f Z.
These im pu tatio ns are im m une from liability if made in good faith for the
protection o f his own interest (by the shopkeeper) o r for the public good (by
the magistrate). Strictly speaking, th e illustrations d o n o t afford much help,
since they “ illustrate” nothing.

71. Ramakrishna R eddy v. The S ta te o f Madras, A .I.R. 1952 S.C. 149, 152.
72. Chotkan v. The Sta te , A .I.R . 1960 All. 606, 608, para 4.
92 Law o f D efam ation : Som e Aspects

Ingredients of the Ninth Exception

Briefly, there are tw o ingredients essential fo r applying the ninth exception,
nam ely,—
(/) the statem ent m ust be made for protecting the interest o f th e m aker
o r recipient o f the com m unication o r fo r th e public goo d , and
(ii) the com m unication m ust be m ade in good faith.
U nlike the first exception, th e nin th exception does n o t require th a t the
im putation m ust be true.
As regards the first ingredient the co u rt has to dccide w hat interest the
person accuscd o f defam ation was trying to protect. T he interest sought to be
protected can be a private one, o r it m ay be the public good. But the mere
b e lie f o f a person th a t he is seeking to protect such an interest or the public
good is n o t enough.73 T he existence o f a legitim ate interest o f th e m aker or
recipient o r o f the public good m ust be established objectively.74
Incidentally, the reason why public good is a legitim ate occasion for privi-
lege in regard to defam ation is th a t th e right o f a perso n to have his reputation
m aintained has som etim es to give way to the public good, bu t the injury
caused to a person m ust be com pensated for by the resultant advantage to the
public.

Good faith under the N inth Exception

T he conccpt o f good faith, which is the second essential ingredient o f the
ninth exception, requires honesty o f purpose, as also d u e care an d attention.
H onesty o f purpose as an ingredient o f good faith has been elaborated in a
M adras case.75 w hich em phasises th at th e accuscd m ust honestly believe the
im putation to be true an d m ust m ake th e im putation honestly fro m a sense o f
d uty to himself.
The care and atten tio n required m ust have relation to the occasion and the
circum stance.7* A t the same tim e, it is n o t nccessary to prove th a t every word
spoken o r w ritten is literally true. If the allegations m ade are such that,
having regard to certain facts and circum stances within his know ledge, the
accuscJ m ight, as an ordinarily reasonable and pru d en t m an, have draw n the
conclusion which he expressed in defam atory language for th e protection o f his
ow n interest, he can be said to have actcd in good faith .77

73. Bholanath v. Emperor, supra note 19.

74. Chaman Lot v. State o f Punjab, A .I.R . 1970 S.C. 1372, 1375.
75. Aycasha Bi v. Peerkhan, A .I.R . 1954 M ad. 741, 748, 749, paras 15-18.
76. Anamlrao v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1915 Bom. 28, 35.
77. Abdul Hakim v. Tej Chandar Mukarji, I.L.R. 3 All. 815, 818 (1881) (petition
before court—statem ents in).
C rim inal L ow ; Section 499 Indian Penal Code 93

Broadly speaking, it can be said th a t in so far as good faith requires due

care an d atten tion , the test is an objective one. 1 he em phasis is on enquiry,
care and objective satisfaction, as pointed o u t by th e S uprem e C o u rt.7* T he
same view has been taken by the several H igh C ourts.79 T here cannot be good
faith if there is recklessness. A m ere plea th a t the accuscd believed in the tru th
o f the allegation is n o t enough.80

O f course, this docs n o t mean th a t the accuscd can m ake th e allegations

first and gather later the evidence sup po rting his allegation. T he evidence
supportive o f the allegation m u st be in the possession o f the accuscd when he
m ade the statem ent, if he desires to establish good faith. Evidence which was
gathered subsequently, but w hich was n o t a t the disposal o f the accuscd when
he m ade the defam atory im putation, cannot be allowed to prove his good
faith .81 In this sense, the test is not an exclusively objective one.
It appears th a t th e following points have to be considered in o rd er to
establish good faith :
(a) circum stances un der which th e im putation was m ade o r published;
(b) w hether there was any malicc;
(c) w hether the accuscd m ade any inquiry before he made the alle-
gations;82
(d) w hether there are reasons to accept the version th a t the accuscd acted
w ith care an d caution; and
(e) w h eth er there is preponderance o f probability that the accuscd acted
in good faith.

Burden and Q uantum o f P ro of

I t is also settled th a t the onus lies o n the accused to establish th e pica
taken by him th a t the case falls within the n inth exception o f section 499.8*
This is the general rule applicable in regard to all the exceptions84 under section
499 and, indeed, to all special o r general exceptions contained in the Indian
Penal C ode.84

78. Sukra M ahto v. Basudeo Kumar, A .I.R. 1971 S C. 1567, 1969.

79. Sec Ram Kumar v. Sta te , (1962) 1 C ri. L.J. 122, 124, 125 (All.) (statem ents pub-
lished without basis). Anandrao v. Em peror, supra note 76; Balasubrahmania v. Raja-
gopalachariar, A .I.R . 1944 M ad. 484, 492, 494; Amar Singh v .K .S . Badalia, (1955)
2 C ri. L .J. 693, 699 (Patna).
80. Dr. L .C . R andhir v. G irdharilal, (1978) C ri. L.J. 879.
81. Superintendent & Remembrancer o f Legal Affairs v. P.C. Ghosh, supra note 49.
82. Chaman L ai v. S ta te o f Punjab, supra note 74 at 1374.
83. Ibid.
84. Harbhajan Singh v. S ta te o f Punjab, A .I.R . 1966 S.C. 97, 102.
85. Surajm al v. Ramnath, A .I.R . 1928 Nag. 58, 62; (dissenting from Limed Singh, supra
note 6); C.C. Das v. Raghunath Singh, A .I.R . 1959 O ritaa 141, 143.
94 Law o f Defamation : Som e Aspects

T he contrary view taken in an A llahabad case,8* relating to the first cxccp-

tion to scction 499 docs n o t appear to be correct and has been expressly dis-
sented from in a N ag pu r ease.87
H owever, th e burden is not so onerous as th at o f the prosecution in prov-
ing gu ilt.88

Position of N ew spapers under the N inth Exception

The ninth exception to section 499, in so far as it protects an im putation
published in good faith for the public good, is o f special relevance to new s-
papers. Case law involving new spapers under this cxccption is profuse; som e
points o f peculiar interest can be usefully illustrated.
A t the outset, let it be stated th a t even where the occasion is privileged,
excess o f publication (e.g. publication in a new spaper where the occasion ju sti-
fied only a less wide m ode o f publicity) m ay defeat the privilege. T hus, there
is a Travancore-C ochin case89 which holds that a libel containing a chargc o f
bribery against a magistrate is n ot protected if published in a new spaper. It
was held th at the public good could have been protected by making a represen-
tation to the governm ent. P ublication in a new spaper was held to be excessive
in the circum stanccs and destroyed the privilege.
Sim ilarly, in a M adras case,"0 publication o f a noticc in the new spaper
having wide circulation was held to be outside the ninth exception. In th at
case, the notice stated th a t the accuscd feared th at the com plainant an d o ther
persons w ould cause bodily harm to the accuscd, an d if anything befell the
accused, the com plainant and his men w ould be responsible. T he High C o u rt
held th a t there was no justification fo r publishing th e notice in a new spaper.
T here are also a few earlier eases91 relating to excessive publication.

Position o f Newspapers vis-a-vis the Law of D efam ation

A ssuming that, in the circum stanccs o f the ease, the publication o f libellous
m atter claim cd to be privileged is not to be regarded as “ excessive” , it m ust
still be rem em bered th a t in the m atter o f d efam ation, the position o f news-
papers is n ot, in any m anner, different from th at o f m em bers o f the public in
general. This proposition has been em phasised m ore than oncc in the ease
law.9* It is, therefore, surprising th at attem pts are still m ade from tim e to time
86. Umcd Singh v. Emperor, supra note 6 at 300.
87. Surajm al v. Ramnath, supra note 85.
88. C .C . Das v. Raghunath Singh, supra note 85 at 143, para 7.
89. S ta te v. Packiaraj. supra note 47.
90. M amm unhi v. Abdul Rahiman, 50 C ri. L.J. 710(1949).
91. Thiagaraya v. K iishnasam i, I.L.R. 15 Mad. 214 (1892); Vinayak v. Shantaram,
A .I.R . 1941 Bom. 410.
92. Thaktir Dongar Singh v. Krishna Kant, A .I.R . 1958 M .P. 216, 217, 218; Dcbajyotl
Butman v. The S ta te , supra note 4; Abid A li Khan v. Prabhakara Rao, (1968) C ri. L.J.
398, 402, para 17 (A ndhra Pradesh).
C rim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 95

to persuade the courts to ado pt a contrary approach. These attem p ts never

succeed.
In fact, there arc observations in a C alcutta case th a t the editor o f a local
journal m ust subm it to a m ore rigorous test o f good faith, when he claim s the
protection given by the cxccption.93
It has been em phasised in an A llahabad ease that the editor o f a newspaper
should be m ost w atchful not to publish defam atory attacks upon individuals,
unless he first takes reasonable pains to ascertain th at there arc strong and
cogent grounds for believing the inform ation which is sent to him , to be true,*4
th a t p ro o f is readily available and th at in the particular circum stanccs his duty
to th e public requires him to m ake the facts know n. This judicial anxiety is
understandable, when one bears in m ind th a t (/) a libel published in a news-
paper has a m uch w ider circulation than o th er libels; and (ii) th at the ordinary
reading public is m ore prone to believe the printed w ord, than a hand-w ritten
lib e l-p a rtic u la rly w hen the printed w ord is published in a new spaper.
In deciding w hether an accused person actcd in good faith under the ninth
cxccption, it is not possible to lay dow n any rigid rule o r test. The court will
have to find o ut th e circum stanccs in w hich th e im putations were m ade; w hether
they were fraught w ith malicc; w hether the accused had m ade any enquiry;
w hether it was w ith due carc and attention o r w hether it was reckless so th at
it could be said th a t it was in good faith o r bad faith. If there is preponder-
ance o f prob ab ility th a t the accuscd acted in good faith, the elem ent o f good
faith could be taken as p roved.95

In the context o f good faith, it is p ro p er to point o u t th a t absence o f

malice an d presence o f good faith arc n o t synonym ous. A person w ho has n ot
taken reasonable care docs n ot act in good faith.9* Thus, the fact th a t the
publisher o f a defam atory im putation, on learning o f the true facts, published
a corrcction the very next day may prove his abscncc o f malice, but does not
establish due carc an d attention which is an essential ingredient o f good faith.

A ttitude tow ards Newspapers

T his does not, how ever, mean th a t courts have adopted any rigid attitude
tow ards new spapers w hile adm inistering the law relating to good faith. R ather,
the m ajority o f th e reported decisions show th a t a sincere attem p t is made to
hold a balancc between the protection o f reputation and th e need to bring
before the public m atters w hich concern the public. In fact,97 the law
reports provide us w ith an interesting instance— n ot very o ld —in which the

93. Bibhuti Bushan v. Sudhir Kumar, A .I.R . 1966 Cal. 47.

94. Mohammad Nazir v. Emperor, supra note 30 at 324.
95. Dr. L .C . Randhir v. G irdharilat, supra note 80.
96. Bibhuti Bhushun v. Sudhir Kumar, supra note 93.
97. Balasubramania v. Rajagopalachariar, supra note 79.
96 Law o f Defam ation : Som e Aspects

courts seem to have gone to the utm ost length in holding th a t the publication
o f a certain m atter, even though th e factual assum ptions w ere incorrect,
deserved pro tection on the ground o f good faith (and public good). This was
a crim inal prosecution for defam ation, th e person alleged to have been defam ed
was n one other th an the em inent Indian statesm an Shri C. Rajagopalachariar.
A fter he had resigned as the C h ief M inister o f the M adras Province under the
Congress governm ent, th e Justice p arty in its w eekly new spaper Sunday
Observer published a news item containing certain allegations, the gist o f which
was th a t G andhiji an d R ajagopalachariar, “ in league” w ith each other, were
encouraging violence. W hile laying dow n the propositions th a t (/) th e editor o f
a new spaper is in no better position th a n an ordinary citizen, an d (ii) where
protection is claim ed under an exception (ninth exception) w hich requires good
faith, recklessness m ay negative good faith, the H igh C o u rt held th a t the ninth
exception m ay protect even baseless o r incorrect statem ents if there is good
faith. O n th e facts, the printer and the ed ito r (w ho were the accused) were
held to have actcd in good faith.

T h e elem ent o f “ public good” is also crucial fo r new spapers. T hus, a

M adhya Pradesh c a se " relating to a libel in a new spaper holds th a t there can
be no “ public good” in telling th e w orld th a t a person was killed, w hen, in
fa c t, he died a natural death. Sim ilarly, there canno t be “ public goo d ” in telling
•the public th a t a death was caused by a particular person, when th a t person
was n ot, in any way, concerned w ith it.

Tenth Exception
This disposes o f the ninth exception to scction 499. A limited and speci-
alised area o f pro tection is the subject m atter o f the ten th exception to the
scction. It gives im m unity to caution conveyed in good faith to one person
against another, provided th at such caution be intended for the good o f the
person to w hom it is conveyed, o r o f som e person in w hom th a t person is
interested, o r for the public good.
M ost o f th e reported decisions on the tenth exception relate to caste
m atters, and things done a t caste meetings. They do n o t decide any points o f
general im portance o r juristic interest.*®
A n interesting question arose in a Punjab case100 concerned with to rtious
liability, n o t for defam ation b u t for giving w rong inform ation leading to the
publication o f a defam atory im putation w hich, in tu rn , resulted in conviction.
T he case is a civil one, b ut was the offshoot o f a conviction for defam ation.
Can th e ed itor o f a new spaper, convictcd o f defam ation, sue in dam ages the

98. Thakur Dongar Singh v. Krishna Kant, supra note 92.

99. Haripado v. Emperor, A .I.R . 1930 Cal. 645. 646 (allegation that com plainant
m arried a woman already m ar ried). Thiagaraya v. Krishnasami, supra note 91;
Paduram v. Biswambar, A .I.R . 1958 O rissa 259.
100. Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram, A .I.R . 1969 Punj. 201, 203, p ara 6.
Crim inal Law : Section 499 Indian Penal Code 97

person w ho gave w rong inform ation which led to th e publication o f a defam a-

to ry statem ent by th e edito r ? This was the novel po int which the H igh C o urt
o f Punjab had to decidc. T he case arose o u t o f the conviction for defam ation
o f the editor o f th e U rd u w eekly “S a ck " published from Ludhiana. It was
held th a t the law recognises no such right o f action. T he ed ito r m ust him self
check the veracity o f inform ation received by th e new spaper. If th e editor
publishing a defam atory rep ort is convictcd, he cannot sue the supplier o f the
w rong inform ation.
O f course, the m anner in which the issue was presented in the Punjab case
did n o t allow o f a consideration o f the interesting, though vexed, question o f
contribution between concurrent o r connected to rt feasors.101

101. The point, though not raised, may be of interest for purposes of civil liability.