DEFAMATION (SECTION 499-502)

ABSTRACT

There is a striking balance between the ARTICLE 19 i.e freedom of speech and expression and the act of defamation. It should be enjoyed in such a manner that it shall not destroyed the reputation of  a person in the society or if it is destroying the person reputation in a society it will come under the exception part of section 499 that means it safeguard the offender’s act which does not tends to the offence of defamation and it must be done in a good faith, withot any malice intention.

Keywords :

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression.
2. Person’s reputation
3. Libel and Slander
4. Offender or accused
5. Communication
6. Good faith

INTRODUCTION

Every person is enjoying certain reputation in a society and it could not get hurt by another person in exercising his freedom of speech and expression. A Defamation which means to defame a person by using false statement and therby causing damage and injury to his reputation by communicating it to a third party. It can be in a written form or be in a verbal form.

SECTION 499 of IPC which states as follows:

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, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

In India defamation can be sued either criminally or civilly. If a party opted to sue through a civil litigation he can sue under law of tort, and if a party chooses to sue criminally he can charge the accused under INDIAN PENAL CODE by filling a suit against him. When the accused is found guilty under the law of tort he is liable to give the monetary compensation to the victim, but when he is charged under the criminal law or the accused is liable for criminal defamation then he is liable for two year imprisonment along with fine under section 499 and 500 of IPC.

Defamation refers to an act when a person tends to injure the reputation of another person and is being observed from the lens of an ordinary person the reputation of that person is harmed then if the defamation is in spoken words or gestures then liable for slander and if it is in permanent form or some sort of publication in a written form then liable for libel.

According to section 499 of Indian Penal code the offence of defamation can only be caused if it is in spoken words, intended to be read by the 3^rd person, makes or publish any imputation that harms the reputation of a person or with a view to defame him or with a sign or by any visual representation. By any of these four methods the fame of a person is defamed, then the offender is liable for his act, to the person concerned. This act is done either with the intention of causing the harm to the person’s reputation or with the knowledge or has reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. It is not a matter of fact here whether there is any injury of the honor of a person or not it is not a deciding factor to establish the guilt of the offender.

EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 499

1. Defamation of a deceased person : A person is liable for the defamation of deceased person if the accusations or the imputations by the offender would impair the deceased reputation or hurt the feelings of his family and relatives.
2. Defamation of a company of association: if any act of the offender tends to injure the reputation of a company or an association then that body or an establishment can file a suit against the person.
3. Defamation by innuendo : innuendo means clever way of speaking by taking the positive meaning before a person having a latent meaning which defamer uses against the victim. It amounts to criminal defamation.
4. Harming Reputation of a person: A person reputation is in detestable condition when the act of an offender lowers down the reputation of a person in respect of his moral or in intellectual character and other believes that the concerned person is not good and put stigma on him. It amounts to criminal defamation.

EXCEPTION TO SECTION 499

1. Imputation made PRO BONO – If there is any imputation made or published in a public good then it will not come under the definition of defamation, and the offender is not liable for defaming that person. Whether it is in public good or not it is a question of fact .
2. Fair criticism of public servant – if a public servant is criticized discharging his public duties or any of the conduct and character of that public servant which appears to be wrong and not otherwise then the offender is not liable for the act of defamation, but that opinion must be true, fair and honest and it is not made out of malice.
3. Conduct of any public person other than public servants: if a person expresses any opinion or views against the act of any public men in a good faith, it will not amount to the act of defamation.
4. Publication of the court’s proceedings report– if any report is published which is substantially true about the nature and the proceeding of the court then it will not amount to the defamation requires only the information is true.
5. Comment on the cases: If any person publishes any views regarding the merits of the cases or any conduct of the witness then the person is not liable for the defamation.
6. Criticism of any literary work of an author: if the author of any literary work submitted to the judgment of a public and any person express his opinion regarding the character and conduct of the author that person is not liable for the defamation, if it is not submitted for the public opinion then it will amount to defamation.
7. Censure by a lawful authority: if any person put censure in good faith provided and has a lawful authority to put that censure under a valid contract between those two persons then the authorised person is not liable for the defamation.
8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person– any person who has a lawful authority over a person accuses him or made a complaint against that person that will not amount to defamation.
9. Accusation for protection of interest: if any imputation or accusation has made against a person for protecting the interest of oneself and of others then it will not amount to the offence of defamation.
10. Conveying Caution in good faith: Any caution which is communicated from one person to another in the benefit of a person or of a public that does not amount to defamation.

SECTION 501 :  This section talks about the defamation of a person in a printed format. It says that when a person prints or engraves any such thing which is defamatory in character and has reason to believe that the words contain the defamatory material which lowers down the reputation and brings disgrace to the character of the person then he will be liable for punishment of 2 years imprisonment or fine or both.

SECTION 502:  It is stated under this section when the printed form of the defamation material offers for sale or sells the person who sells will be liable for the defamation and punished with 2 years imprisonment or fine or both.

Limitation period for filing of a suit in the defamation cases

The limitation period is one year after the person’s defamation. If there are many defamations of that in a line then the period of one year starts from the last defamation which he faced by the offender’s act. 

RELEVANT CASE LAW

1. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS

It was contended in this case that freedom of speech and expression is curtailed under section 499 of IPC, and it needs an amendment. The apex court held that there is no further need of amendment in this section it is complete and freedom od speech is not an absolute right guaranteed to the people of India, it is a restricted right and section 499 is a constitutionally a valid section.

CONCLUSION

Here, we have seen that freedom of speech and expression is restricted when it comes to the question of reputation of a person in a society. If it affects that person’s honour than the offender is liable for his act and he could not take the defence of freedom of speech and expression. But when the person communicates in a bona fide then his liability will not be attracted. Hence it has been concluded here that the given right of freedom of speech and expression must be exercised within the four walls of that freedom not beyond that.

THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY TANISHKA TIWARI, A 4^TH YEAR STUDENT OF SHAMBHNATH INSTITUTE OF LAW