Defamation – Defamation consists in injury to the reputation of a person.

Facts

slander	Libel
Slander is thepublication of a defamatory statement in a transient form.	Libel is a representation made in some permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy or statute.
May be spoken words or gestures.	In a cinema film, not only the photographic part is considered to be a libel but also the speech which synchronizes with it is also a libel
slander to the ear	libel is addressed to the eye,
Slander is only a civil wrong	A libel is both a crime and a tort.
Slander is actionable, save in exceptional cases, only on proof of special damage	Libel is actionable per se.

• Essential Conditions
  • The statement must be defamatory
    • Tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff.Ramdhara V Pulwati bai 1969 − statement in anger − notThe innuendo −
      • Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons
      Intention to defame is not necessary
      •  In Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., − Indirect implication − Wife occasionally visited the husband home − the defendant publish the news in his newspaper.
• • • • The said statement must refer to the plaintiff

In Hulton & Co. v. Jones (1910)− The defendants, newspaper proprietors, published a fictional article in their newspaper by which

imputations were cast on the morals of a fictitious person, Artemus Jones. A real person of the same name, i.e., Artemus Jones, brought an action for libel. His friends, who read that article, swore that they believed that the article referred to him. The defendants were held liable.

• Dhirendra nath sen v rajat kanti bhadra 1970 −−
• Newstead v. London Express Newspapers Ltd

a. T.V. Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohindeen,

1. Defamation of the deceased.— reputation of family
2. Defamation of a class of persons.
   1. Knupffer v. London Express Newspapers Ltd.
   1. In Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra, It has been held that when an editorial in a newspaper is defamatory of a spiritual head of a community, an individual of that community does not have a right of action.

1. The statement must be published
2. Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed.
3. Injunction against publication of a defamatory statement
4. Communication between husband and wife
5. Repetition of the defamatory matter
   1. —Etmnens v. Pottle −
6. Indemnity from the supplier of wrong information

Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram

Principles

• Defenses−
  • Justification by truth,
    • Alexander v. North Eastern Ry.,− . There the plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine of £ 1 or 14 days’ imprisonment in the alternative, for travelling on a train without appropriate ticket. The defendants published a notice stating that the plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine of £ 1 or three weeks’ imprisonment in the alternative. Held, the defendants were not liable, the statement being substantially accurate.
  • Fair and bona fide comments,
    • (i) It must be a Comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact;
    • (ii) The comment must be fair, and
    • (iii) The matter commented upon must be of public interest.

• Privilege (absolute and qualified),
  • Consent and apology

• The innuendo − In Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., − Indirect implication
  • Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons
    • Here was a dispute between the defendants, Henty & Sons, and one of the branch managers of the plaintiff bank.

The defendants who used to receive cheques drawn on various branches of the Capital and Counties Bank sent a circular letter to a large number of their customers as follows : “Henty & Sons hereby give

drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.”

• The circular became known to various other persons also and there was a run on the bank.
• The bank sued Henty & Sons for libel alleging that the circular implied an insolvency of the Bank.
• Held, that the words of the circular taken in their natural sense did not convey the supposed imputation and the reasonable people would rot understand it in the sense of the innuendo suggested.
• There was, therefore, no libel.
• Repetition of the defamatory matter

—Etmnens v. Pottle − The defendants, who were large−scale news−vendors, sold copies of publication containing libellous matter concerning the plaintiff. It was found that they neither knew nor were negligent in not knowing the matter and hence there was no publication on their part. Held, they were not liable.

• Indemnity from the supplier of wrong information
  • Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram
    • it was held that if a person supplied wrong information and the editor is convicted for publishing the same, the editor cannot claim indemnity from the supplier of the information unless there was a contract of that effect because the editor does not have a legal right to get only the correct news.
    • It was observed that “it is the duty of an Editor of a newspaper to check up the news or the information that is supplied to him, before publishing the same in his paper, especially when the news might be of a defamatory nature, If he does not do that, he has to suffer the consequences for his neglect and remissness.”