Defamatory Material

Posted on by user

Introduction

Defamatory material — in the modern Indian practice context — is any published expression (spoken, written, visual or electronic) that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right‑thinking members of society or injures that person’s reputation. The doctrine is of immediate practical importance because India treats reputation as a protected interest both civilly (tort / damages and injunctive relief) and criminally (Sections 499–500, Indian Penal Code). For litigators, publishers, journalists, corporate counsel and intermediaries, an accurate grasp of what constitutes defamatory material, the permissible defences, and the procedural routes (injunction, damages, criminal complaint, takedown) is essential to effective case strategy.

Core Legal Framework

Statutory foundation
– Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Section 499 IPC (definition of defamation): Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, or otherwise, 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.
– Section 500 IPC (punishment): Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
– Section 499 also contains several specific exceptions (truth for public good, fair comment, privileged communications — judicial and parliamentary proceedings, publication of public documents, etc.). These exceptions are central to defence strategy.

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Criminal defamation is generally non‑cognizable (police ordinarily cannot take immediate cognizance in place of a complainant) and is made subject to provisions on private complaints (Section 200 CrPC) and bailable/compoundable classification — practice varies and courts often take complaints on police reports.

  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872

  • Section 65B and related principles govern admissibility of electronic records (printouts/screenshots) and require compliance with certificate requirements where secondary evidence of electronic records is tendered (see case law below).

  • Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules

  • Section 79 IT Act provides intermediary safe harbour if due diligence is performed and the intermediary acts on court orders/appropriate government notifications; Measured application for take‑down requests and grievance procedures under the IT Rules is part of online defamation practice.
  • Earlier provisions like Section 66A (offensive messages) have been struck down (Shreya Singhal), which affects the mix of remedies for online publications.

Civil remedies and other procedural law
– Civil law: Plaintiff may sue for libel (written/printed/online) or slander (spoken), seek injunctions to prevent further publication and claim general, aggravated and/or exemplary damages; courts can also order takedown of online content and disclosure of identity of anonymous posters.
– Limitation: There is a short limitation period for actions founded on defamation (practitioners must check the Limitation Act/Latest high court precedents for the exact period in their territorial jurisdiction before filing).
– Intermediary procedures: Preservation notices, requests for user information under the IT Rules, and combined civil/criminal steps are often used.

Practical Application and Nuances

Elements a plaintiff must establish (civil and criminal overlap)
1. Publication: The material was communicated to at least one person other than the claimant. For online material, publication can be immediate and widespread.
2. Identification: The allegedly defamatory content refers to, or can reasonably be understood to refer to, the claimant.
3. Defamatory meaning: The natural and ordinary meaning of the words tends to lower the claimant’s reputation among reasonable members of the community.
4. Falsity (critical in civil claims for damages): Truth is a complete defence only in specific situations (truth for public good with bona fide motive — see exceptions to Section 499).
5. Damage / Harm: In libel, damage is generally presumed; in slander, special damage may be required unless the slander falls into recognized actionable categories.

Evidence that actually wins cases
– The publication itself: original copies, website URLs, screenshots, printouts. For electronic material, ensure preservation (metadata, server logs) and obtain a Section 65B certificate or follow the authorities on electronic evidence (see below).
– Proof of dissemination: witness testimony, analytics, social media metrics, RTs/shares, email chains, message forwarding logs.
– Identification evidence: affidavits from persons who understood the reference to the claimant; context analysis showing how readers would identify the claimant.
– For online anonymous speakers: platform logs and subscriber information obtained via court directions or by following IT Rules and Section 91/92 CrPC processes.
– For intent/malice (where relevant, e.g. some defences or aggravated damages): prior communications, editing history, pattern of similar publications.

How criminal complaints are pursued in practice
– Criminal defamation requires a complaint in a magistrate (Section 200 CrPC) or registration of FIR in some police stations (although non‑cognizable status technically restricts police action without magistrate direction). Practitioners commonly:
– File a private complaint supported by affidavit and documentary evidence;
– Seek police investigation where police agree to register FIR (practice varies; some courts have rebuked arbitrary FIRs for defamation);
– Beware of delays and forum shopping — criminal route is often slower and contentious; it carries risk of counter‑claims and free speech defenses.

How civil injunctive relief and damages are used
– Immediate injunctive relief: ex parte temporary injunctions and takedown orders are frequently sought, especially for online posts where continuing harm is likely. Draft the injunction to require intermediary takedown and disclosure of origin if necessary.
– Permanent relief: claim for damages, an account of profits (rare), and aggravated/exemplary damages if malice or recklessness is shown.
– Discovery and disclosure: plead precise particulars and seek prima facie documents; courts have ordered disclosure of subscriber details from intermediaries.

Digital/online defamation — special rules and practice
– Preservation is critical: send a preservation notice to the intermediary and the poster; obtain a preservation order from court if necessary.
– Admissibility: comply with Section 65B Evidence Act requirements or follow the latest case law on electronic evidence (see Anvar and Arjun Khotkar below). Obtain digital forensic reports and certificates.
– Take‑down process: use a combination of notices to the platform’s grievance officer, court orders, and criminal complaints where appropriate. Section 79 safe harbour protects intermediaries only if due diligence is shown and they act on court orders or valid rules‑based requests.
– Anonymous/False accounts: seek disclosure orders (judicial orders requiring intermediaries to disclose records) — courts will balance privacy and reputation; the trend in recent judgments favors disclosure to vindicate reputation where prima facie case is shown.

Common factual scenarios and how courts approach them
– Satire or hyperbole vs. defamation: Courts assess the “ordinary and natural” meaning. Satire that a reasonable reader would not take as factual is often protected as fair comment.
– Public figures: While reputation is protected, courts require a higher degree of tolerance for robust criticism of public persons. The defence of fair comment and public interest is stronger; however, the truth defence is not abrogated.
– True but irrelevant allegations: Even true statements can be actionable if not in public interest or not bona fide for public good (one of Section 499 exceptions is narrow — truth must be for public good and with good faith).

Landmark Judgments

  • R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 (Auto Shankar case)

  • Principle: Struck a balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation/privacy. Held that the right to publish facts of public interest about public figures is part of free speech, but not absolute — courts must weigh public interest and privacy and reputation concerns. Important for assessing publications about public figures and the “public interest” defence.

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

  • Principle: Section 66A of the IT Act (criminalising offensive online messages) was struck down for overbreadth. The judgment affirmed the need to protect freedom of speech online and clarified intermediary liability frameworks; it is frequently relied on in online defamation arguments to highlight limits on criminalising speech and to develop procedural safeguards for takedown demands.

  • Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

  • Principle: Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of Sections 499 and 500 IPC, treating reputation as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 and observing that criminal defamation is not unconstitutional per se. The judgment is pivotal for practitioners because it confirmed criminal defamation as available remedy while also calling for careful exercise of criminal law.

  • Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal (2019/2020)

  • Principle: These cases govern admissibility of electronic records — Anvar required Section 65B certificates for secondary electronic evidence; Arjun Khotkar later clarified and relaxed aspects but practitioners must ensure compliance or rely on primary electronic evidence where possible. For online defamatory material, certificates and forensic chain‑of‑custody evidence often decide admissibility.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

For plaintiffs (people/companies whose reputation is attacked)
– Act fast: preserve evidence, take screenshots with timestamps, send preservation notices to intermediaries, and issue legal notice quickly to the defendant and intermediary.
– Choose forum carefully: civil injunction + damages is the typical route for immediate remedial relief; criminal complaint can be filed when defamatory content is malicious or egregious, but be prepared for contestation and free‑speech defences.
– Draft pleadings with precision: identify the exact words/phrases complained of, dates and channels of publication, the nature of the imputations, and specify the defamatory meaning you attribute. Attach certified copies of the publications.
– Seek interim ex parte relief when irreparable harm is shown (especially online). Draft relief to include takedown and disclosure of origin/IP data.
– Preserve forensic evidence: server logs, IP addresses, web archive evidence (Wayback), and 65B certificates for electronic records.
– Quantify damages: prepare evidence of reputational harm (loss of business, humiliation, media coverage) and argue for aggravated damages if malice is shown.

For defendants (publishers, journalists, posters)
– Test defences early: truth (with public good and bona fide motives), fair comment, absence of malice, and privileged occasions.
– If journalism is involved, maintain editorial records, sources, and fact‑checking notes to support bona fides and public interest defence.
– Consider correction/apology/offer to retract: frequently pragmatic and can avert long litigation; courts sometimes weigh timely apology favourably in mitigation of damages.
– For intermediaries: keep logs, demonstrate compliance with due diligence, act upon court orders promptly, and follow the IT Rules for grievance redressal to preserve Section 79 protection.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Failing to preserve electronic evidence or to obtain necessary 65B certificates; losing admissibility of key digital proof is fatal in many cases.
– Vague pleadings: alleging “defamation” without specifying imputations, date, medium and meaning will attract dismissal.
– Ignoring intermediary processes (sending takedown requests without following grievance rules) — courts may expect compliance before holding intermediaries liable.
– Treating criminal defamation as a quicker remedy; in practice criminal cases can be strategically used but may prolong litigation and invite counter‑litigation.
– Overreliance on truth without establishing public good and bona fide motive where statutory exceptions require it.

Sample practical checklist (what to do in first 72 hours)
1. Preserve the material (screenshots, save URLs, ask intermediaries to preserve server logs).
2. Obtain a digital forensic report and 65B certificate if relying on electronic records.
3. Send a legal notice demanding takedown, apology and/or damages; simultaneously issue preservation notice to the platform.
4. If urgent harm: file an ex parte application for interim injunction and takedown with supporting affidavits and forensic evidence.
5. Prepare for disclosure: identify witnesses, produce contemporaneous editorial/source material if you are publisher, or evidence of identification if plaintiff.
6. Consider alternate dispute resolution (apology/retraction) if commercial reputational interests make settlement viable.

Conclusion

Defamatory material in India sits at the intersection of reputation (a protected personal interest), freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)), and evolving digital communications law. Practically, success depends on early preservation and admissible presentation of evidence, a careful choice between civil and criminal remedies, and skilful invocation of statutory exceptions (truth for public good, fair comment, privilege). For online cases, intermediary procedures and compliance with electronic evidence rules are decisive. The established case law (R. Rajagopal, Shreya Singhal, Subramanian Swamy, Anvar/Arjun Khotkar) provides the framework: reputation is protected, but so is robust public interest discourse — the lawyer’s task is to frame the dispute to fit within the high court’s balancing exercises and the statutory exceptions while ensuring procedural safeguards are met.