Laws of Defamation in Today’s World
Defamation has a different meaning in the books but in today’s world, everyone has a different meaning of the word defamation. So, what basically is defamation? And is it even useful in today’s changing world? Does it have anything to do with freedom of speech and expression? Well, all these questions will be discussed in this article keeping in mind the present changing scenarios.
Introduction
Defamation in the layman’s language is the publication of any such content which lowers the reputation of an individual in the eyes of the other people. So, when we say something or post anything about any person which lowers down his reputation in the eyes of the whole world and the society believes it to be true then it is called defamation. It can take place through spoken words or gestures or any other such form knows as Slander and if it’s in the verbal or printed form then it will be called a libel. The laws of Defamation o included in the Civil laws as well as Criminal laws. In the Civil Laws — Law of Torts and the punishment is given in the form of damages and in the Criminal laws — Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the Punishment for the same in given under Section 500 which is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
IN INDIA DEFAMATION IS BOTH A CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OFFENCE
The remedy for defamation under the civil laws expressed under the Law of Torts. In a civil defamation case, the individual who is defamed can move either to the High Court or subordinate courts and seek for the damages in the form of monetary compensation. Likewise, under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, an individual liable of criminal defamation can be sent to prison for a short duration of two years or fine or both.
Defamation as a Civil Suit
Under the law of torts there are certain elements of a defamation suit which are as follows:
First: There should be some defamatory content which injures the person’s reputation by exposing things about him/her to create hatred and such other kind of feelings to the rest of the world.
Second: The person against whom such content has been posted should be identified in such statements and there should be no confusion or doubt regarding his identity in the content.
Third: The content must be published on a public platform where it is exposed to the rest of the world it can be either in the form of written or oral. If it is not published then it does not amount to defamation.
Under a criminal suit, intention to defame is an important element. In the absence of intention, the knowledge that the publication was likely to defame or is defamatory becomes essential. All this is further subject to the normal standard of proof in criminal cases: beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the difference between a civil wrong and a criminal offence?
The main point of difference between both is in relation to the punishment given in such cases by the court of law. Criminal cases have a potential punishment for two years or fine or both depending upon the natures of the case and the discretion of the court. Whereas the Civil cases have the punishment in the nature of monetary compensation decide by the court to the person defamed.
The nature of proof is also different in both areas of laws. In the civil law, there are the various essential elements which have been already discussed above and in case of the Criminal case the crime must be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Why Criminal Defamation should be declared Unconstitutional?
Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal code has many problems with it. Section 499 of the IPC gives the right to sue to a person whose reputation has been damaged or intended to be damaged which is complete violative of the freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and further, Article 13 stated that laws which are against the Fundamental Rights shall not be valid and to be held unconstitutional.
By the bare reading of section 499 of the IPC, we can make out that, it does not impose any ‘reasonable restriction’ on the freedom of speech as per Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. In today’s world, the defence taken by the person which is the truth is also not applicable and used arbitrarily by the authorities because even if the person speaks the truth he is pressed with the charges of the defamation. Another problem with the section is that even when the person has not made any verbal or written statement at all he can still be prosecuted on the issuance of the complaint by the magistrate when that person is involved with some other person who has made such defamatory statement which is not fair at all. There is no mechanism adopted by the court in finding out whether the person is actually involved or not.
Another problem with this section is that you can go to jail if you spoke about a person or gave such statements about a person who is dead while Article 19(2) permits that same for the public good. In today’s world, the ironical statement can also be considered as defamation. Section 499 has become a tool in the hands of the powerful political leaders who don’t want to be questioned and has been misused very much and in the last, it is still not clear as to defamation needs to be a criminal offence at all and why the civil defamation is not sufficient.
The need for reform of Defamation laws
Defamation laws in many nations are at risk to get misused, however, India’s condition is worst in this regard than most of the countries. In addition to the fact that they are arbitrary, they make it worse by the additional stride of making defamation a criminal offence and allowed people with power and money to misuse the same
The right to reputation has been considered as a right by the Supreme court but it should not be at the cost of Freedom of speech and expression. In today’s world, free speech is an essential part of the democracy, it is our right to question the government and right to receive the answers of the same it gives the media the right to expose the government and held a person accountable for certain Acts. The Right to offend with reasonable limits should be protected by Freedom of speech.
The main problem with all this is that having both a civil and criminal remedy for the same offence and then the overburdened judiciary trying to deal with the same matter twice on two different laws.
The Way Ahead
There is absolutely no need for the Criminal defamation in the country when there is already defamation in the civil laws, also it should not be allowed due to the reason that it becomes an instrument for misuse in the hands of the state, when the Code of criminal procedure gives arbitrary authorities to the public officials to use this and by allowing the state’s prosecutors to fight the case for them when they have been defamed by the media person or any other political person. The chilling effect that it has had on free speech and democratic accountability is too high a price to pay for the protection of individual reputations.
Be that as it may, civil suits for defamation are not an ideal story in India either. Fighting a case in Indian courts is commonly a dull and costly undertaking that just gets settled after numerous years. It is this information that is misused by people and enterprises with profound pockets. Realizing that they can stand to hold up under the expenses of a preliminary, such sorts of individuals undermine their faultfinders with an extended defamation suit. These suits likewise by and large request over the top harms and are documented in a remote court to build travel costs.
Such suits have been named, to some degree fittingly, as vital lawsuits against public participation (or SLAPPs). Obviously, respondents to SLAPPs don’t often have indistinguishable resources from the complainants and think that it’s difficult, monetarily and something else, to guard their cases. SLAPPs need not really come full circle in a legal dispute, as in some cases different notification undermining numerous lawsuits in various wards, each for a huge number of crores in harms, are adequate to purchase quietly.
The reforms to the defamation would be done through passing legislation which not only decriminalised the defamation law but also passed reforms for the civil defamation to make it fairer and clearer to the people in way that the false allegation and the tactics of SLAPPs should not take place at all. Further, as a new reform, the legislation must undertake the law governing defamation in the internet and new media generation and should mention clearly the guidelines for deciding the issues and also who can be punished for defamation and how.
