DEFAMATION
Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with property. A man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable than other property.
Libel and Slander
English Law : Â Actions for defamation are traditionally divided into Slander and Libel.
Slander is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form, such as spoken words or gestures.
Libel is a defamatory statement in a permanent form, including writing, printing, pictures, effigies, or statues.
Thus, temporary defamatory expressions amount to slander, while defamatory statements in a lasting form constitute libel.
Youssoupoff v. M.G.M. Pictures Ltd.
In Youssoupoff v. M.G.M. Pictures Ltd., the Court held that a cinema film, including its synchronized sound, constitutes libel because it is a permanent form of publication.
This principle is supported by Section 1 of the Defamation Act, 1952, which also treats wireless broadcasting as permanent publication.
Under English law, the distinction is important because libel is actionable per se and may also amount to a criminal offence, whereas slander generally requires proof of special damage (except where it imputes a crime, a contagious disease, professional incompetence or dishonesty, or unchastity to a woman).
Thus, films and broadcasts are treated as libel, while spoken defamation is usually slander unless it falls within these recognised exceptions.
Indian Law
Unlike English law, Indian law makes no distinction between libel and slander.
Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), both written and spoken defamation are criminal offences.
In tort law, Indian courts have rejected the English rule requiring proof of special damage for slander, holding that both libel and slander are actionable per se.
Thus, a person may sue for either written or spoken defamation without proving actual financial loss.
Parvathi v. Mannar
In Parvathi v. Mannar, Turner C.J. and Muthuswami Ayyar, J. rejected the English common law rule requiring proof of special damage in cases of oral defamation, holding that it lacked a reasonable basis and should not apply in India.
The Court observed that the English law of slander was unsatisfactory and established that oral defamation in India is actionable without proof of actual pecuniary loss.
Thus, a person may sue for spoken defamation in India based solely on injury to reputation, without proving financial loss.
Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshaw Edulji and A.C. Narayana Sah v. Kannamma Bai
In Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshaw Edulji and A.C. Narayana Sah v. Kannamma Bai, the Bombay and Madras High Courts held that an imputation of unchastity against a woman through spoken words is actionable per se, without proof of special damage.
Thus, under Indian law, a woman may sue for compensation for spoken allegations affecting her chastity without proving any actual financial loss.
Bhooni Money Dossee v. Natobar Biswas
In Bhooni Money Dossee v. Natobar Biswas, Harrington J. of the Calcutta High Court took a contrary view, holding that the pre-1891 English rule requiring proof of special damage for imputations of unchastity against a woman still applied in India under the Charter of 1726.
He reasoned that the rule caused no injustice because, even if civil damages were unavailable without proof of pecuniary loss, the aggrieved woman could still pursue criminal proceedings against the offender.
Thus, the Court favoured the old English rule, requiring proof of financial loss in civil actions while recognizing criminal law as an alternative remedy.
D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata
In D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata, the Court held that defamatory statements are actionable per se.
A local newspaper, Dainik Navjyoti, falsely reported that a 17-year-old B.A. student had eloped, causing public ridicule and harming her marriage prospects.
The Court presumed general damages without requiring proof of monetary loss and awarded ₹10,000 as compensation.
Thus, publishing false and defamatory news that harms a person’s reputation is automatically actionable, even without proof of financial loss.