3. Defamation
• According to Dr Winfield, “ Defamation is the
publication of statement which tends to lower
a person in the estimation of right thinking
members of society generally, or, which tends
to make them shun or avoid that person.”
4. Difference between defamation and
insult
• Defamation is injury to reputation of the
person by words. It requires publication to
third person.
• Insult is injury done to another by means of
words or representation. It consist of abusing
a person only in his presence.
6. Libel
• It is defamatory statement made in some
permanent and visible form, such as, writing,
printing, pictures or effigies.
• Libel is visible to eye.
7. Slander
• Statement made by spoken words or some
transitory form, visible or audible such as
gestures, hissing (mocking ) or such other
things.
• Slander is generally audible to ears.
8. Ingredients required to prove libel
1. The statement must be false
2. It must be in a permanent form
3. It must be defamatory
9. Youssoupoff v Metro Goldwyn Mayor
pictures Ltd.
• In this case it was held that talking films are
considered as libel as the scenes depicted on
the screen are of permanent nature.
10. Libel actionable per se
• It means that in an action for libel plaintiff is
not required to prove any damage. Any injury
to one’s reputation is actionable per se
whether it causes any special damage to
plaintiff or not.
11. Slander not actionable per se
• In action for slander the plaintiff has to prove
some special damage. A mere injury caused to
man’s reputation does not entitle him to
initiate an action for defamation .The
defamatory statement must have caused a
real damage to the plaintiff which may either
be pecuniary or which can be determined in
money value.
12. Circumstances when Slander is
actionable per se
1. Imputation of Crime:
• Slander is actionable per se if the words charge the
plaintiff with the commission of criminal offence
punishable corporally and not by fine only. E.g. murder,
robbery, rape, etc.
2. Imputation of virulent disease
• Slander is actionable per se if the words contain an
imputation of contagious disease of particular kind.
Venereal disease and leprosy come within the rule.
• In Blood- Wroth v Gray defendant was held liable for
his statement to others that his son-in-law suffered
from venereal disease.
13. Cont…..
Imputation against office profession or trade:
• Imputation of incompetency and dishonesty
of plaintiff with regards to his office,
profession, callings, trade or business is
slander and actionable per se.
• Imputation of bankruptcy against shopkeeper,
incompetency against surgeon and ignorance
of law against lawyer are slander per se.
14. Unchastity of a woman
• Slander of Woman Act, 1891 make words
imputing unchastity or adultery to any
woman or girl actionable per se in England.
• In Hirabai v Dinshaw the High Court of
Bombay held that words imputing adultery to
a married woman are actionable without
proof of special damage.
15. Essentials of defamation
• Defamation is generic term governing both
libel and slander. The four essentials common
to both are:
1. The statement must be defamatory
2. The statement must refer to plaintiff
3. The statement must be published
4. The statement must be false
16. The statement must be defamatory
• A statement will be considered as defamatory
if it
• Exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt,
ridicule or obloquy, or
• tends to injure him in his profession or trade,
or
• Causes him to be shunned or avoided by his
neighbors' or members of the society.
17. What is and is not----- defamatory
• What is defamatory
It is defamatory to say that the person is immoral
and unchaste( Extramarital ), or that he refuses to
pay his just debts, or is having trouble with his
wife and is about to be divorced or that he is
bastard, etc
• What is not defamatory
It is not defamatory to say that a man is dead, or
that he is over cautious with his money, or that
he has led an eventful life, or that the person is
homeless, or that he is labour leader, etc
18. Ram Jethmalani v Subramaniam
Swamy
• While giving his statement in front of
commission that was set to inquire into
assassination of late PM, Mr Rajiv Gandhi, the
defendant stated that the Senior Counsel had
been receiving money from LTTE. This
offending statement was quite unconnected
and irrelevant to inquiry. The statement was
held to be defamatory and damages of 5 lac
were awarded.
19. Innuendo
• Defamation at times, is not apparent or prima
facie clear. It is couched in subtle language.
Words which are not defamatory in the
ordinary sense may, nevertheless, convey a
defamatory meaning owing to particular
circumstances in which they are spoken.
20. Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper
The defendants published in a newspaper a
photograph of one MC, and Miss X, together
with .words. “Mr M.C. , the racehorse owner
and miss X whose engagement has been
announced”. In an action by the plaintiff, the
wife of MC, it was held that the publication
was capable of conveying a meaning
defamatory of the plaintiff Viz, that she was
not the lawful wife of MC and was living
with him in immoral cohabitation.
21. The statement must refer to plaintiff
• The statement alleged to be defamatory must refer
to plaintiff.
• In Hulton and co v Jones, The appellants in their
newspaper published an article in which “Artemus
Jones” described as church warden , was accused of
living with a mistress in France. The article was
written as a fiction and the appellants were unaware
of existence of any person bearing that name.
Unfortunately there existed a barrister and
journalist, bearing the same name. People who knew
him thought that the article referred to him. House
of Lords held the appellant liable.
22. Principle laid down
• A person who writes and publishes the libel
may not intend to libel particular person, the
plaintiff, yet, if evidence is produced that
reasonable people knowing some of the
circumstances, not necessarily all, would take
the libel complained of, to relate to the
plaintiff an action for libel would lie.
23. Statement must be published
• If there is no publication, there is no injury to
reputation and no action will arise.
• Requirement is that the statement must be
made to some person other than plaintiff
24. Communication between husband
and wife
• Communication between husband and a wife
does not amount to publication.
• If husband tells his wife that ‘X’ is a dishonest
man. ‘X’ cannot sue the husband for
defamation.
25. Repetition of defamatory words
• Original maker of defamatory statement
though liable for his statement but will not be
liable for reproduction of the same statement
by some body else.
