2. CONTENT
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
KARE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
JOHNNY DEPP VS AMBER HEARD
ANIL AMBANI VS MUKESH AMBANI
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES VS THE HINDU
08
TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN VS THE EXPRESS
ARUN JAITLEY VS ARVIND KEJRIWAL
3. WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
The meaning of defamation is stated under
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A
person is said to defame someone if he/she
harms his/her reputation by communicating
false statements through spoken or written
words, pictures, or signs.
According to the law, defamation is of two types:
When defamation is in the spoken form, it is called
slander.
When it is in written form, it is called libel. Under the
Indian civil law, a person can move to court against
any individual who has defamed them and seeks
compensation for the damages from the accused.
4. JOHNNY DEPP VS AMBER HEARD
The defamation case between
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
took place in 2020.
Depp filed a defamation lawsuit
against Heard over an op-ed she
wrote for The Washington Post in
2018, in which she discussed
being a victim of domestic abuse
without naming Depp directly.
Depp argued that Heard's
implication painted him as the
perpetrator, damaging his
reputation and career.
5. In response, Heard filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against Depp in
Virginia, alleging that he orchestrated an online smear campaign against her,
damaging her career and reputation.
The outcome of the case was that Depp's defamation lawsuit against Heard
was dismissed in the UK, while Heard's defamation lawsuit against Depp in
Virginia was allowed to proceed.
JOHNNY DEPP VS AMBER HEARD
6. The jury ruled that Heard's op-ed references to "sexual violence" and
"domestic abuse" were false and defamed Depp with actual malice and
awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in
punitive damages from Heard, although the court reduced the punitive
damages to $350,000 due to a limit imposed by Virginia state law.
JOHNNY DEPP VS AMBER HEARD
7. They also ruled that Depp had defamed Heard through Waldman, who had
falsely alleged that Heard and her friends "roughed up" Depp's penthouse as
part of an "ambush, a hoax".They awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory
damages and $0 in punitive damages from Depp. Separately, the jury ruled
that Waldman's other allegations of Heard's "sexual violence hoax" and "abuse
hoax" against Depp had been proven defamatory.
JOHNNY DEPP VS AMBER HEARD
8. Background:
In 2003,Hindustan Times
published an article alleging
that Bajaj Auto had paid bribes
to government officials.
The article also implied that
the company had manipulated
its share prices.
Bajaj Auto, one of India's
leading automobile
manufacturers, considered
these allegations defamatory
and damaging to its reputation.
THE BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
9. Legal Proceedings:
1. *Defamation Suit:* Bajaj Auto filed a defamation suit against Hindustan
Times, seeking damages for the harm caused to its reputation.
2. *Judicial Review:* The case went to trial, where both parties presented their
arguments and evidence.
3. *Verdict:* After considering the evidence, the court ruled in favor of Bajaj
Auto, finding that the allegations made by Hindustan Times were unconfirmed
and defamatory.
THE BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
10. THE BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
Outcome:
1. *Compensation:* Hindustan Times was ordered to pay a significant amount in
damages to Bajaj Auto as compensation for the harm caused to its reputation.
2. *Precedent:* The case set a model regarding the standards of journalism and
the responsibility of media outlets to verify facts before publishing potentially
damaging information.
11. •Impact:
1. *Reputation Management:* Bajaj Auto's victory in the case helped restore its
reputation in the eyes of consumers, investors, and stakeholders.
2. *Media Accountability:* The case highlighted the importance of responsible journalism
and the potential consequences of publishing unfounded allegations.
THE BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
12. THE BAJAJ AUTO VS HINDUSTAN TIMES
•Conclusion:
The Bajaj Auto vs. Hindustan Times defamation case underscored the significance of
maintaining integrity in reporting and the legal recourse available to companies to
protect their reputation against defamatory claims.
It serves as a reminder for media organizations to stick to ethical standards and verify
information thoroughly before publication to avoid legal unwelcome consequence.
13. THE NATIONAL HERALD VS RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES
The defamation case between The News herals
one of India's prominent newspapers, and
Reliance Industries, a major conglomerate,
revolves around allegations by The News
Gerald regarding irregularities in the Rafale
fighter jet deal between India and France.
14. THE NATIONAL HERALD VS RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES
1. Allegations of Defamation:
- Reliance Industries accused The News Gerald of defamation due to
articles implicating the company in alleged irregularities in the Rafale deal.
- The crux of the dispute lies in whether the articles published by The News
Gerald constituted defamation and caused harm to Reliance Industries'
reputation.
15. THE NARIONAL HERALD VS RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES
2. Freedom of the Press:
- The case raised fundamental questions about the freedom of the press and the
ability of media outlets to report on matters of public interest without fear of legal
repercussions.
- It underscored the importance of protecting journalistic freedom in democratic
societies and the role of the media in holding government and corporate entities
accountable.
16. THE NATIONAL HERALD VS RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES
3. Public Interest vs. Reputation:
- The controversy highlighted the tension between the public's right to know about
government dealings, particularly in defense contracts, and the potential harm to private
entities' reputations from media coverage.
- It brought attention to the delicate balance between transparency and accountability on
the one hand and protecting private entities' interests on the other.
17. Conclusion
The defamation case between The National herald and Reliance Industries serves as a
significant case study in the intersection of press freedom, corporate accountability, and legal
considerations in India. It underscores the importance of protecting the independence of the
media while also recognizing the need to balance public interest with the rights of private
entities. The outcome of the case carries implications for the future of journalism and the legal
framework governing media freedom in India.
THE NATIONAL HERLAD VS RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES
18. TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN
VS
THE EXPRESS STATE
Background of the case:
1)Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were married at the
time (1997).
2) The Express on Sunday newspaper published an
article claiming their marriage was a sham, fabricated
for PR purposes.
3) The article published in the Express on Sunday,
October 5,1997 made various personal attacks on both
Cruise and Kidman, including alleging infertility and
accusations of homosexuality. They also stated that the
couple adopted children to mask infertility
19. TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN
VS
THE EXPRESS STATE
Lawsuit:
1)Cruise and Kidman sued the newspaper for
defamation.
2) They sought substantial damages and a
retraction of the article.
3) The case centered on the truthfulness and
fairness of the published allegations.
20. TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN
VS
THE EXPRESS STATE
Key Points of the case:
1)Public Figure vs. Private Individual: As celebrities, Cruise and Kidman faced a higher
standard of proof compared to private individuals in defamation cases.
2) Burden of Proof: The newspaper had the burden of proving the truth of their claims, which
they failed to do.
3) Harassment: The court acknowledged the article's intrusive and harassing nature towards
the couple.
21. TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN
VS
THE EXPRESS STATE
Key Points of the case:
4) Retraction and Damages: The newspaper published a full retraction and apologized to
Cruise and Kidman.
5) Settlement: The amount of damages awarded was not publicly disclosed, but it was
believed to be significant.
22. TOM CRUISE AND NICOLE KIDMAN
VS
THE EXPRESS STATE
Impact:
1.This case set a precedent for celebrity defamation suits, highlighting the importance of
factual accuracy and responsible journalism.
2.It served as a reminder of the potential consequences of publishing harmful and
baseless allegations.
23. KATE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
Background:*
Date: January 2009
Plaintiff: Actress Kate
Winslet
Defendant: The Daily Mail
Claims:"Should Kate Winslet
win an Oscar for the world's
most irritating actress?"
Publication of several nude
photos from her films
deemed offensive.
24. Allegations:
The Daily Mail claimed Winslet lied about exercising at home for 20 minutes daily,
suggesting she used trainers and intense workouts.
Accusations implied Winslet was hypocritical about body image and health.
KATE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
25. KATE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
Legal Arguments:
Winslet argued the article was false and damaging to her reputation.
The Daily Mail claimed "fair comment" based on their interpretation of her public
statements.
26. Outcome:
Winslet received an apology published in the newspaper.
Awarded £25,000 in damages and legal costs. Case highlighted importance of
accurate reporting and responsible journalism.
KATE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
27. Additional Points:
Winslet initially stated she wouldn't comment on the article, but ultimately felt compelled to take legal action due to
the severity of the accusations.
The case sparked discussions about paparazzi ethics and the public's right to information versus individual
privacy.
Impact:
Set a precedent for celebrities seeking protection against false portrayals.
Raised awareness about body image and media scrutiny of female figures.
Winslet used the settlement to support eating disorder charities.
KATE WINSLET VS THE DAILY MAIL
28. ARUN JAITLEY VS ARVIND KEJRIWAL
The defamation case between Arun
Jaitley and Arvind Kejriwal
emerged from allegations made by
Kejriwal against Jaitley concerning
financial irregularities during
Jaitley's tenure as the President of
the district and Delhi cricket
association.
Kejriwal, along with several other
members of the Aam Aadmi Party
(AAP), accused Jaitley of
involvement in corruption .
29. *Allegations and Response*:
Kejriwal and AAP members publicly made allegations against Jaitley, which gained
significant media attention and political traction. Jaitley vehemently denied the
accusations and decided to pursue legal action against Kejriwal and others involved.
ARUN JAITLEY AND ARVIND KEJRIWAL
30. ARUN JAITLEY AND ARVIND KEJRIWAL
Filing of Defamation Cases:
In December 2015, Arun Jaitley filed both civil and criminal defamation
cases against Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, including Kumar
Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh, and Raghav Chadha. These cases were
filed in response to the defamatory statements made by the accused,
which Jaitley argued tarnished his reputation and standing in society.
31. Legal Proceedings in Court:
The case underwent various legal proceedings, including hearings, arguments, and
evidence presentation in court. Both parties presented their arguments and evidence to
support their respective claims.
ARUN JAITLEY AND ARVIND KEJRIWAL
32. Apology and Withdrawal of Case*: In December 2017, after prolonged legal proceedings, Arvind
Kejriwal and other AAP leaders issued a joint statement apologizing to Arun Jaitley for making
false allegations against him. Following the apology, Jaitley decided to withdraw the defamation
case against Kejriwal and the other accused, effectively bringing an end to the legal dispute.
*Resolution Attempts*: Throughout the legal battle, there were attempts at reconciliation and
settlement between the two parties. However, these attempts were unsuccessful as the matter
remained contentious and politically charged.
ARUN JAITLEY AND ARVIND KEJRIWAL
33. Background:
Brothers Anil and Mukesh Ambani,
sons of the late Dhirubhai Ambani,
were involved in a long-standing
business rivalry after the split of
their father's empire.
In 2008, Anil's Reliance
Communications filed a ₹100
billion defamation suit against
Mukesh's Reliance Industries
Limited (RIL) over comments
attributed to Mukesh in a New York
Times interview.
ANIL AMBANI VS MUKESH AMBANI
34. Allegations:
* Anil claimed that Mukesh, in the interview, made "false, defamatory, malicious and
totally baseless" comments about the financial health of Reliance Communications.
* These comments, according to Anil, damaged the company's reputation and
caused financial losses.
ANIL AMBANI VS MUKESH AMBANI
35. Key Developments:
* Mukesh denied making the specific comments attributed to him in the interview.
* The brothers signed a non-compete agreement and pledged to renegotiate a gas supply
agreement, possibly aiming to settle the dispute outside court.
* Anil eventually withdrew the defamation suit in 2009, citing the progress made in other
areas.
ANIL AMBANI VS MUKESH AMBANI
36. Aftermath:
* The case, though short-lived, highlighted the ongoing sibling rivalry between the Ambani
brothers.
* It also raised questions about the potential impact of media reporting on corporate affairs
and reputations.
ANIL AMBANI VS MUKESH AMBANI
37. GROUP MEMBERS
1)Jovita- Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman Vs The express(Roll no 59)
2) Svanik - Kate Winslet vs The Daily Mail( Roll no 84)
3)Atishi- Anil vs Mukesh Ambani ( Roll no 90)
4)Shivani-Bajaj Auto vs. Hindustan Times ( Roll no 92)
5) Soham - Arun Bailey vs Arvind Kejriwal( Roll no 107)
6) Reachal- Johnny depp and amber heard case (Roll no113)
7) Shraavani- Reliance Industries vs The Hindu 2019 case (Roll no 502)
