LIST OF CONTENT
Introduction....................................................................................................................1
Defamation: Definition and elements............................................................................2
Categories of defamation................................................................................................3
Defamation law: Comparative analysis............................................................................4-8
Defamation: Public versus individual remedy ..................................................................9-12
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................13
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
Introduction
NEXT TO life, what man cares most is their reputation. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, defamation
means the offence of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious
statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander. Defamation has become
a burning issue in the present times; courtesy the growing media frenzy which has been created over
the freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under article 19 (1) (a). There exists an
apprehension in the mind of individuals whether in their individual or public capacity as to which
statement of theirs might constitute a furore or land them behind bars.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the paper aims to examine critically the conceptual
definition of defamation, position of defamation laws in other jurisdictions, position of defamation
laws in India and the judicial intervention in this matter by analyzing the judgement of Subramanian
Swamy v. Union of India1 with special reference to the Shreya Singhal’s2 case. Whether it is the filing
of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) or other cases on infringement of private or
public rights, defamation is adopted in defence as a matter of prerogative and that being right to
reputation. Therefore, it becomes imperative to examine these issues in the light of the judgement
delivered so that clouds of doubt shed away and give vent to an informed consensus on the mooted
matter.
Defamation: Definition and elements
Defamation in law, is attacking another’s reputation by a false publication (communication to a third
party) tending to bring the person into disrepute. The concept is an elusive one and is limited in its
varieties only by human inventiveness. Although defamation is a creation of English law, similar
doctrines existed several thousand years ago. In Roman law, abusive chants were capitally
punishable. In early English and German law, insults were punished by cutting out the tongue. As late
as the 18th century in England, only imputation of crime or social disease and casting aspersions on
professional competence constituted slander, and no offences were added until the Slander of
Women Act in1891, made imputation of unchastity illegal. French defamation law, required
conspicuous retraction of libellous material in newspapers and allowed truth as a defence only when
publications concerned public figures. Modern German defamation is similar but generally allows
truth as a defence. In Italy, truth seldom excuses defamation, which is criminally punishable there.
Generally defamation requires that the publication be false and without the consent of the allegedly
defamed person. Words or pictures are interpreted according to common usage and in the context of
publication. Injury only to feelings is not defamation; there must be loss of reputation. The defamed
person need not be named but must be ascertainable. A class of persons is considered defamed only
if the publication refers to all its members particularly if the class is very small- or if particular
members are specially imputed.
Libel and slander are legal subcategories of defamation. The advent of electronic communications
has complicated the classification somewhat. Some countries treat radio defamation as libel, others
as slander. Television presents similar problems. The law also recognises that printed defamation is
more likely to be injurious than “mere talk”.
The damages recoverable in libel and slander are also different. Libel lawsuits undertake redress for
all injurious consequences of the defamation-called general damages if they involve loss of
reputation and called special damages if they involve specific economic loss. In a slander action one
can recover only special damages; however, some jurisdictions do not make this distinction.
Defamation is criminally punishable under various statutes but in order to invoke that it should be
such which directly prejudices the public interest.
Actual truth of the publication is usually a defence to a charge of defamation. Legal privilege arising
from a special relationship or position also relieves liability (US Senators, for instance, cannot be
prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the Senate). In certain areas the mass media have
broad discretion under the doctrine of “fair comment and criticism”, but such comment must pertain
to a person’s work and not private affairs, and must be factually accurate.
Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to
lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them
shun or avoid him.
Categories of defamation
For historical reasons, defamation can be divided into the following categories
Libel – Representation in a permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy or statute.
Slander – Depiction in transient form. It is basically through words spoken or gestures.
Essentials characteristics of defamation
i. The statement must be defamatory.
ii. The said statement must refer to the plaintiff.
iii. The statement must be published i.e., communicated to at least one person other than
the claimant.
Defamation law: Comparative analysis
English law
The Defamation Acts of 1952 and 1996 are the important statutes in England that lay down the
law related to defamation. Under English law, there is a distinction between libel and slander.
Two reasons have been accorded. Firstly, libel not slander is punishable under Criminal law. In
fact, slander is no offence. Thus, libel is always actionable per se. Secondly; in most cases of
slander “special damage” must be shown.6 As far as law of torts is concerned, slander is
actionable, only in exceptional cases on proof of special damage. There are four exceptional
instances in which proof of special damage has to be proved:
i. Imputation of criminal offence to the plaintiff.
ii. Imputation of a contagious (disease) or an infectious disease to the plaintiff (which has
the effect of preventing others from associating with the plaintiff).
iii. Imputation that a person is incompetent, dishonest or unfit in regard to the office,
profession, calling or trade or business carried o by him.
iv. Imputation of unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl is also actionable per se. This
exception was created by the Slander of Women Act, 1891.
Thus, in England slander is only a civil wrong. However, it is to be noted that civil action is more
onerous than criminal action.
American law
In United States (US), defamation law is much less plaintiff friendly as compared to its European
counterpart due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. (Freedom of religion, press,
expression. Ratified 12/15/1791). The First Amendment reads as:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One very important distinction in present times is that European and Commonwealth
jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate
claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read,
while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication. Further, there is no
distinction between libel and slander. This is because different states have different definitions.
Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some
states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very
infrequently prosecuted.
Australian law
In Australia, the law relating to defamation varied from state to state until in 2006 when uniform
defamation laws were enacted. After the enactment of this Act, the law related to defamation
became similar across all states and territories. The uniform laws adopted a number of statutory
provisions from old laws but still retained the basic principles of common law. Under the
uniform defamation laws, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. This was not the
case under the old system of individual state laws where almost anyone or any organisation or
company could bring an action for defamation. However, individuals or groups of individuals
employed by or associated with that corporation - such as company directors, CEOs or managers
can still sue if they are identified by the publication. Not-for-profit organisations can still sue for
defamation, no matter how many employees or members they have.
Pakistani law
In Pakistan, defamation is covered under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.9 Both libel and
slander are actionable per se. Special damage need not be proved in case of publication of
defamatory matter. Violation under said law shall constitute compensatory damages not less
than 300,000 Rupees for the initiator. Although Ordinance (as amended in 2004) is still
considered a new law as there are still no decided cases filed by companies against the
publishers and journalists, one can consider that the defamation laws is just the beginning for
Pakistan. Section 499 -502 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (same as that of IPC, 1860)
elaborates the definition, explanation, exceptions and punishment to the law related to
defamation. It is worth observing that Pakistan takes “religious defamation” very seriously.
Sections 295, 295A, 295B and 295C makes religious defamation (blasphemy) a crime, punishable
ranging from two years imprisonment to death.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case concerning, The Nation based its ruling squarely on
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression embodied in article 19 of the
Constitution of Pakistan. It is, as in India, subject only to “reasonable restrictions”. The court
ruled:
In the wrong of defamation the law presumes malice in the sense of wrongful act done
intentionally by publishing defamatory matter but there is a lawful excuse for the publication of
such matters as in the ordinary case of privileged communication or of fair comments upon a
matter of public interest, the onus is upon the plaintiff to establish the fact of malice in order to
maintain the action. It means that malice must be proved as a fact irrespective of the mere
inference arising from the libellous character of the publication. When the plaintiff fails to prove
malice by cogent evidence then he can be non suited on this ground. The burden of proving
express malice both by extrinsic and intrinsic evidence lies on the plaintiff to show that the
publications were actuated by some indirect or improper motive.
Defamation laws in India
In India, there is no such distinction between libel and slander. Both libel and slander are
criminal offence. For better understanding, it can be divided into two categories:
i. Criminal
ii. Civil
Defamation as a crime
The IPC under chapter XXI sections 499-502 protects an individual’s / person’s reputation.
Defamation against the state is contained in section 124A [Sedition], Section 153 of the Code
provides for defamation of a class i.e., community [Riot], while section 295A deals with hate
speech with regards to outraging religious sentiments. [Hate Speech]
Section 499 of the IPC defines ‘defamation’ as being committed:
i. Through: (i) words (spoken or intended to be read), (ii) signs, or (iii) visible
representations;
ii. Which: are a published or spoken imputation concerning any person;
iii. If the imputation is spoken or published with: (i) the intention of causing harm to the
reputation of the person to whom it pertains, or (ii) knowledge or reason to believe
that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person to whom it pertains will be
harmed.
This broad definition is subject to four explanations and ten exceptions.12 If a person is found
guilty of having committed defamation in terms of section 499 of the IPC, the punishment is
stipulated in section 500, simple imprisonment for up to two years or fine or with both. The Cr
PC, which lays down the procedural aspects of the law, states that the offence is noncognizable
and bailable. Those who are accused of the offence would generally not be taken into custody
without a warrant, and as such, an aggrieved person would not be able to simply file a police
complaint but would, in most cases, have to file a complaint before a magistrate. As far as the
'truth defence' is concerned, although ‘truth’ is generally considered to be a defence to
defamation as a civil offence, under criminal law, only truth is a defence to defamation as a
crime (assuming, of course, that it is demonstrably true) only in a limited number of
circumstances. This can make persons particularly vulnerable to being held guilty of having
committed defamation under the IPC even if the imputations they made were truthful.
Defamation as a tort
As far as defamation under tort law is concerned, as a general rule, the focus is on libel (i.e.,
written defamation) and not on slander (i.e., spoken defamation). In order to establish that a
statement is libellous, it must be proved that it is (i) false, (ii) written; (iii) defamatory, and (iv)
published.
An interesting aspect of defamation as a tort is that it is only a wrong if the defamation is of a
nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. In most cases, this translates to
saying that it is not a tort to defame a deceased person since, as a general rule, the plaintiff
needs to be able to prove that the defamatory words referred to him. However, this does not
mean that there can be no cause of action if a dead person is defamed — if, for example, a
defamatory statement negatively impacts the reputation of a deceased person’s heir, an action
for defamation would be maintainable. Further, if an action for defamation is instituted, and
defamation is found to have been committed, damages will be payable to the plaintiff (usually,
the person defamed). In addition to this, a person apprehensive of being defamed in a
publication may seek the grant of an injunction to restrain such publication. However,
prepublication injunctions are rarely granted as Indian courts have tended to follow the
principle laid down in the 1891 case of Bonnard v. Perryman which is as follows:
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction, and even by an interlocutory injunction, the
publication of a libel. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary, and an interlocutory
injunction ought not to be granted except in the clearest cases—in cases in which, if a jury did
not find the matter complained of to be libellous, the Court would set aside the verdict as
unreasonable. An interlocutory injunction ought not to be granted when the Defendant swears
that he will be able to justify the libel, and the Court is not satisfied that he may not be able to
do so.
This principle has been followed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the 2002 case of
Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi.15 As such, even if there is an apprehension that content
may be of a defamatory nature, it is likely that publication would not be restrained except in
exceptional cases — presumably, those cases where the later payment of damages would
clearly not suffice to set right the wrong done to the person defamed. In nonexceptional
circumstances, Indian courts have shown a tendency to support free speech, and have not
displayed a tendency to grant injunctions which would have the effect of muzzling speech on
the ground of possible defamation.16 It is significant to mention that a defamation bill was
proposed by the Rajiv Gandhi government to deal with the law pertaining to defamation.
However, Defamation Bill, 1988 received widespread criticism from the media and opposition
parties due to its draconian provisions; as a result it was withdrawn.
V The defamation debate and judicial intervention
The apex court’s judgement in Swamy’s17 case which was delivered on May 13 put a rest on
the speculation of defamation being decriminalised when the constitutional validity of the
contended provisions were upheld.18 However, the judgement has received a mixed response
and there appears to be ex-facie a bent towards negative. It is observed by some intellectuals
that by not decriminalizing defamation, unfettered powers will vest especially with the political
fora and corporations who can manipulate according to their own whims which would further
unnecessary hassle while there are others who advocate that in the present times it becomes
imperative to replace the colonial provisions as their application has become redundant. In this
regard, it becomes imperative to revisit the case and analyse the verdict so that an informed
consensus can be formulated.
Swamy’s petition: Decriminalisation and allied issues The concurring petitions filed by leading
political figures unanimously demanded decriminalizing defamation on one hand and
strengthening civil remedies and financial compensation for the loss of individual reputation.
The two basic contentions of the seven issues raised in the writ petition filed by Subramanian
Swamy were:
i. Declaring Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional.
ii. Declaring Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC) as
unconstitutional.
According to the petitioner, these provisions cast an unreasonable restriction on free speech,
one that falls beyond article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, other
contentions submitted by the petitioner are as follows:
i. In a democratic body polity, public opinion, public perception and public criticism, are
the three fundamental pillars to guide and control the Executive action and, if they are
scuttled or fettered or bound by launching criminal prosecution, it would affect the
growth of a healthy and matured democracy.
ii. Fundamental rights of liberty and free speech are controlled and not absolute as per
the Constitution, but in the name of control the freedom of speech that pertains to
criticism of certain governmental actions cannot be gagged.
iii. The individual interest in the guise of reputation cannot have supremacy over the
larger public interest, for the dominant interest in a democracy is the collective interest
and not the perspective individualism.
iv. The Executive does not permit expression of public opinion by instituting cases of
defamation through the public prosecutors by spending the sum from the State
exchequer which is inconceivable.
v. The concept of sanction, which is enshrined under Section 199(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, is a conferment of unfettered power by which the citizenry right to
criticize, is gradually allowed to be comotosed.
The counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that sections 499 and 500 could
not be said to travel beyond reasonable limits on free speech, because article 19(2) itself
imposes such a restriction.20 Also, there has to be a debate with regard to the conceptual
meaning of the term ‘defamation’ used in article 19(2) of the Constitution and ‘defamation’ in
section 499 of the IPC. It was also pointed out that the freedom of speech and expression has
to be a controlled one and does not include the concept of defamation as defined under
section 499.21 The bench while going through the petition raised a question that whether
abolition of criminal action in other countries22 could really have effect when the court
decides on the constitutional validity of a provision regard being given to India’s own written
and organic constitution.
Judgement: A critical appraisal
The division bench comprising of Dipak Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant JJ wherein Mishra J
delivered the judgement, is a gargantuan 268 page document upholding the constitutional
validity of sections 499, 500 of the Code, 1860 and 199 of Cr PC, 1973. A comprehensive and
detailed anatomy has been undertaken whilst arriving at the decision. It commences with the
conceptual exploration of the terms defamation and reputation by delving into various
dictionary meanings, international instruments and allied sources. Thereafter, it classifies the
various submissions of the different counsels for the petitioner in the following manner:
i. Defamation essentially includes a civil action but not a criminal proceeding.
ii. If it is considered that defamation includes a criminal proceeding, then the application
of the principle noscitur a sociis has to be made so as to construe the real meaning of
Article 19(2) and in the process save the fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a).
iii. The intention of Article 19(2) is to include a public law remedy in respect of a
grievance and not an actionable claim against an individual.
iv. Defamation of a person is an assault on their reputation by another individual which
cannot form a fundamental right. Hence, criminal defamation cannot claim to have its
source in the word “defamation” as used in Article 19(2).
Defamation: Public versus individual remedy
CASES-
The arguments advanced by the petitioners emphasized that defamation is a dispute between
two individuals in which the reputation of one individual is attacked by another. Hence, follows
the rationale aforementioned. The apex court meticulously goes into each and every aspect.
Reference is made to the constitutional assembly debates through which the court tries to
establish that the framers of the Constitution too had no intention to confer a restricted
meaning on the term defamation. With regard to the application of principle of noscitur a
socii, the court rules out its application by clarifying that defamation has its own identity and
cannot be given a restricted meaning.
As far as the dichotomy of defamation being a public or individual remedy is concerned, it was
contended that reputation has been held to be a facet of article 21 in Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni, 23 Mehmood Nayyar24 and Umesh Kumar. 25 Now since,
defamation involves marring the reputation of an individual, therefore, criminal defamation
cannot form a public remedy. To this, the apex court gives reasoning that individuals constitute
the collective and the law relating to defamation protects the reputation of each individual in
the perception of the public at large. Further, a nexus is sought to be established via
definitions of crimes that every crime is an injury; every public offence is also a private wrong,
and somewhat more. It affects the individual, and it likewise affects the community.26 For
instance, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013, the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 regulate the fundamental rights of citizens vis-a-vis other
citizens. So, the petitioners contention that that treating defamation as a criminal offence can
have no public interest and thereby it does not serve any social interest or collective value
holds no ground.
Conflict between article 19(1) (a) and right to reputation balancing of fundamental rights
Another question which arose before the court was whether reputation of another individual
or a group or a collection of persons absolutely ephemeral, so as to hold that criminal
prosecution on account of defamation negates and violates right to free speech and
expression of opinion. To answer this, the apex court goes into the interpretational analysis of
freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1) (a), 19(2), right to reputation vis-à-vis
article 21. After a detailed scrutiny and references to plethora of cases on each subject matter,
the court resorts to the rule of harmonious interpretation and adopts the doctrine of
balancing of fundamental rights. With regard to the permissibility of criminal defamation, the
Court opines that it can be tested on the touchstone of constitutional fraternity (preamble)
and fundamental duty. However, the court finds it difficult to come to a conclusion that the
existence of criminal defamation is absolutely obnoxious to freedom of speech and expression
but concludes that it does not invite the frown of any of the articles of Constitution nor its
existence can be regarded as unreasonable restriction.
Sections 499 and 500 IPC 1860 versus reasonable restrictions
The pertinent question which arose before the court was whether sections 499 and 500 of the
IPC go beyond the scope of the reasonable restrictions imposed under article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India?
While answering in negative, the Supreme Court gave a detailed reasoning of the explanations
and exceptions appended to section 499. It was submitted by the petitioners that on two
earlier occasions, R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu28 it had been observed
as follows:
In all this discussion, we may clarify, we have not gone into the impact of Article 19(1) (a) read
with clause (2) thereof on Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. That may have to
await a proper case.
In N. Ravi v. Union of India30 wherein it had been observed as follows:
Strictly speaking on withdrawal of the complaints, the prayer about the validity of Section 499
has also become academic, but having regard to the importance of the question, we are of the
view, in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the validity aspect
deserves to be examined.
As defamatory speech is one such restriction prescribed under article 19(2) (1) of the
Constitution. Therefore, in order to curb speech that is defamatory, court observed that the
restriction imposed should be ‘reasonable’. In Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh32 the Supreme Court laid down the meaning of the term ‘reasonable restrictions’:
The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in
enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is
required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and
deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily
or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and
unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (g) and the
social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that
quality.
Also, whether the law that imposes the restriction is reasonable should be judged in
accordance with current social, economic and political circumstances of the nation. One of the
rules of statutory interpretation is to interpret the words of a statute in light of the current
facts and situations and not based on the facts/situations of the past. In The Senior Electric
Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra,34 the court expounded:
... in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a
Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a
modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to
be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and
with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and
other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation
should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable
of comprehending them.
It had been the one of the contentions that the exceptions make the offence more rigorous,
thereby making the concept of criminal defamation extremely unreasonable. Further, truth
was not a defence and unnecessary stress on ‘public good’. The apex court, after a detailed
discussion concluded that neither the main provision nor the explanation nor the exceptions
remotely indicated any vagueness and thus cannot be called unreasonable.36 It also rejected
the argument that criminal defamation was not saved by the doctrine of proportionality.
Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Of the various criticism of section 199, one of it was that the term “some person aggrieved”
allowed all kinds of person to take recourse to defamation. The court inferred that it will
require ascertainment on due deliberation of the facts. In John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan38
while dealing with the “person aggrieved.” The court opined that the test is whether the
complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of publication is a matter to be determined by
the court depending upon the facts of each case. It has also been commented upon that by
giving a benefit to public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the union or of a
state in respect of his conduct in the discharge of public functions to file the case through
public prosecutor, apart from saving his right under sub-section (6) of section 199 Cr PC, the
provision becomes discriminatory. In this regard, court ruled that a public servant is treated
differently than the other persons and the classification invites the frown of article 14 of the
Constitution and there is no base for such classification. It has also been argued that multiple
complaints are filed at multiple places and there is abuse of the process of the court. In the
absence of any specific provisions to determine the place of proceedings in a case of
defamation, it shall be governed by the provisions of chapter XIII of the Cr PC, 1973
(Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials). Another aspect pertained to the
issue of summons. Section 199 Cr PC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of
criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor any direction can be issued under section
156(3) of Cr PC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate
is more especially during the time of issue of process. Moreover, he also has to keep in view
the language employed in section 202 Cr PC which stipulates about the resident of the
accused at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. He must
be satisfied that ingredients of section 499 Cr PC are satisfied.T
The apex court observed that fundamental rights and reasonable restrictions interact closely
and should be tested on the anvil of the principle of proportionality. If a restriction is
disproportional or excessive it defeats the purpose of the fundamental right and hence is ultra
vires the Constitution. One of the tests of checking proportionality of a restriction is that the
punishment/restriction should impair ‘as little as possible’ the freedom in question. This test
was laid down in R v. Oakes40 and followed by the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar
Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra41 and other cases. It held that the sections 499
and 500 were within the ambit of reasonable restriction.
Conclusion
The law of defamation seeks to protect individual reputation. Its central problem is how to
reconcile this purpose with the competing demands of free speech. Since both these interests
are highly valued in our society, the former as perhaps the most dearly prized attribute of
civilized human beings while the latter the very foundation of a democratic society. The apex
court gave an interim time period of eight weeks to the petitioner within which they can
challenge.45 Meanwhile, other cases have also arisen especially in the political fora such as
defamation case filed against Gogoi46 or the alleged arrest of Kiku Sharda.47 The decision
brings finality to the case but raises certain questions in its wake. For instance, in a progressive
economy like India, is resorting to penal provisions justified especially in an era, where
reformative justice is replacing retributive justice. Besides the growing intolerance in the
nation is another issue which might get a reason due to this judgement. In such situations,
there becomes a need to shed one’s inhibition and discuss viable solutions. One such
proposition in this area would be the right to reply. Of course, this has been debated earlier.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Link]
LAW OF TORTS- BY RK BHANGYA