The document discusses the rights to reputation and free speech/expression under international human rights law and the Indian constitution. It notes that both rights are important and should be balanced. Defamation laws aim to protect people's reputations from harm caused by false statements. To establish a defamation claim, a statement must be false, published to others, and injure the plaintiff's reputation. Libel refers to written defamatory statements while slander refers to spoken statements.

1. Right to Reputation
The international human right treaties explicitly provide for the right to reputation as well as right to
free speech and expression.
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 in Article 12clearly
stipulates that no one shall be subjected to attack on his honour and reputation. Scrutinising on this
score, it cannot be said that reputation should be allowed backseat whereas freedom of speech and
expression should become absolutely paramount.
Though certain countries have kept the remedy under common law and have decriminalized
defamation, yet it does not mean that where the law criminalizing defamation is maintained, the
said law is unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional.
The right to protection of reputation and the right to freedom of speech and expression are seemly
balanced.

2. Art 19 vs Art 21
• Articles 14 and 19 have now been read to be a part of Article 21 and, therefore,
any interpretation of freedom of speech under Article19(1)(a) which defeats
the right to reputation under Article 21 is untenable.
• The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute
but is subject to constrictions under Article19 (2). Restrictions under Article
19(2) have been imposed in the larger interests of the community to strike a
proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests
specified under Article19(2).
• One’s right must be exercised so as not to come in direct conflict with
the right of another citizen.
• The argument of the petitioners that the criminal law of defamation cannot be
justified by the right to reputation under Article 21 because one
fundamental right cannot be abrogated to advance another, is not sustainable.
• It is because
• (i) the right to reputation is not just embodied in Article 21 but also built in
as a restriction placed in Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech in Article
19(1)(a); and
• (ii) the right to reputation is no less important a right than the right to
freedom of speech.

3. Defamation
• The law protects people from many types of harms, including harm to one’s good
name and character. The United States legal system affords people the right to sue
when false and defamatory statements have harmed their reputations.
• Elements of Defamation
• Defamation is a “communication that tends to harm the reputation of another to
lower his estimation in the community or deter third parties from associating with
him.”
• A statement is defamatory if has a negative impact on someone’s reputation among a
substantial number of people in the community, even if the number of impacted
people is not a majority of the community.
• Since these rules offer only general guidance, the determination of whether a
negative statement rises to the level of defamation must be determined on a case by
case basis.
• Every defamation claim must meet the following four elements:
• (a) a false statement concerning another;
• (b) the statement must be defamatory;
• (c) a publication to a third party; and
• (d) harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.

4. Elements
The Statement should be made- A statement can be made by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations.
The Statement must refer to the plaintiff- The defamatory statement must refer to
the person, class of persons or the trustees of a company. The reference may be
express or implied. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to be mentioned by
name, if he can still be recognized.
The Statement must be defamatory- A defamatory statement tends to diminish the
good opinion that others hold about the person and it has the tendency to make
others look at him with a feeling of hatred, ridicule, fear or dislike. To criticize
goods is not defamation.
The intention of the wrongdoer- The person making the defamatory statement knows
that it will result in causing injury to the reputation of the person defamed.
The Statement should be false- A defamatory statement should be false because the
truth is a defence to defamation
The Statement must be published- For defamation to occur, the statement should be
published. The statement should be communicated to a third party.
The Statement must cause injury- The statement made should harm or injure the
plaintiff in some way. For example, the plaintiff lost his job because of the
statement made.

5. IPC defamamtion
• Defamation has been defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) as
• “ whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person is said to defame that person.”
• Defamation falls into two categories:
• Libel – A defamatory statement published in a written form.
• Slander – A defamatory statement made in a verbal form (spoken).
• However, a mere defamatory statement does not amount to
defamation. The publication of such statement is a pre-requisite to
establish defamation.

6. Libel vs Slander
English Law — English law divides defamation into two
* Libel Libel is the representation made in some permanent form, e.g.,
writing, printing, picture etc.
* Slander Slander is the publication of a statement in a transient form. examples
of it may be spoken words or gestures.
Under English law, the distinction between libel and slander material for two reasons:
1. Under Criminal law, only libel has been recognized as an offence. Slander is not an
offence.
2. Under the law of torts, slander is actionable only on proof of special damage. Libel is
always actionable.
Indian Law: It has been noted above that under English criminal law, a distinction is made
between libel and slander. There, Libel is a crime but slander is not. Slander is just a
civil wrong in England. Criminal law in India does not make any such distinction
between Libel and Slander. Both Libel and Slander are criminal offences under section
499, I.P.C. It has been noted above that though Libel and Slander both are considered
as civil wrongs, but there is a distinction between the two under English Law. Libel is
actionable per se, but in case of slander, except in certain cases, proof of special
damage is required to be proved.