NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

PROJECT: LAW OF TORTS I

TITLE: DEFAMATIOM IN MEDIA TRIAL BY NEWS CHANNELS

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

KHUSHBOO SHARMA PROF.(DR.) RAJIV KUMAR KHARE

2019BALLB110

Page 1 of 20
TABLE CONTENTS:

Contents
CERTIFICATE:.........................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLDGEMENT:...........................................................................................................4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………………………….5

LIST OF CASES:.......................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION:....................................................................................................................6
OBJECTIVES:...........................................................................................................................6
METHODOLOGY:....................................................................................................................6
TYPES OF DEFAMATION:....................................................................................7
DEFINITIONS:..........................................................................................................7
ESSENTIALS..………………………………………………………………………………..8

DEFENSES……………………………………………………………………………………9

DEFAMATION UNDER MEDIA………………………………………………………......11

RELEVANT CASES………………………………………………………………………..12

COCNCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS…………………………………………………..17

BIBLIOGRAPHY:...................................................................................................................18

Page 2 of 20
CERTIFICATE:

This to certify that the project titled “Defamation in media trial by news channels has been
prepared and submitted by Ms Khushboo Sharma, who is currently pursuing her
B.A.L.L.B(Hons) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. This is in partial fulfilment of
Law of Torts I course. It is also certified that this is her original work.

Date:

Signature of the student:

Signature of the supervisor:

Page 3 of 20
ACKNOWLDGEMENT:

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Kumar Khare for providing me
with the opportunity to research, study comprehensively and pen this project. Without his aid
and guidance, the completion of this analysis would have been a very difficult task.

I also wish to thank the library administration and staff for helping me find the correct
resources required to compose this project, for resources are useful only when used
appropriately.

I also find it of utmost necessity to acknowledge the constant support and encouragement I
received from my parents and friends. They are the true source of my motivation and will to
thrive.

Page 4 of 20
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY BY HENRY BLACK

1951, 4th edition.
Black’s law dictionary is the most widely used dictionary. It is the reference of choice for
legal terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal
authority.

 THE LAW OF TORTS BY DR. R.K BANGIA

2013, 23rd edition
A textbook in the law of torts that covers definitions of civil wrongs, major laws, landmark
judgements, remedies and defences, causation for damages and much more. The author has
put in tremendous efforts in writing the book in a manner that simplifies the comprehension
of law of torts.

Page 5 of 20
 LIST OF CASES:

 Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd

 Slipper v. British Broadcasting Corp.
 Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath
 K.S Sundaram v. Vishwanathan
 Wagner V. Harbour Radio ( Australia )
 Salenadandasi V. Gajjala Malla Reddy
 Knupffer V. London Express Newspaper
 Mr. Parshuram Babaram Sawant V. Times Now
 Divya Spandana V. Suvarna News 24*7
 Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd.

Page 6 of 20
INTRODUCTION:

Defamation also called as calumny, vilification, or traducement is an injury that is caused to

the reputation of the person. The injury caused by the person is done at his own risk similar to
the case of interference with the property. Reputation is a man’s property which in most of
the cases is the most important one.

The hypothesis (Research question) of my project is whether the media trials by news
channels and other media network amount to defamation which are not effectively
compensated.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the tort of defamation with its essentials

2. To understand the concept of media trial

3. To identify whether the act of media trial amount to defamation

4. To analyze the adequacy of the remedy provided by the court in cases of medial trail sued
for defamation.

METHODOLOGY:

The method used for research is doctrinal.

Page 7 of 20
MEANING:

Defamation is an injury to a person's reputation. If someone injures someone else's

reputation, he will do so at his own risk. As in the event of property interference. The
reputation of a man is his property and more precious than other property if possible.

EXAMPLE: if someone publishes a completely wrong or false statement about a person in a

newspaper. Like if you publish that x is a smuggler while he was a pickpocket, it is a
defamatory statement.

TYPES OF DEFAMATION:

1. Libel

2. Slander

DEFINITIONS:

Slander is that the publication of a denigratory statement in a very transient type. Samples of
it perhaps spoken by words or gestures.
Libel is that the illustration created in some permanent type. E.g. writing, printing, picture,
image or sculpture.

Apart from Torts, defamation is also considered as a crime. Though it has certain differences.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBEL AND SLANDER: (ENGLISH LAW)

Under legal code (Criminal law) solely libel has been recognized as associate degree offence.
Slander is not any offence.

Under law of torts slander is unjust, save in exceptional cases, solely on proof of special
damages. Libel is actionable per se. No proof is required as such.

In the following four exceptional cases slander is additionally unjust in and of itself,

Page 8 of 20
1) Imputation of criminal offence to the complainant.

2) Imputation of communicable disease to the complainant that has the result of preventing
others from associated with the plaintiff.

3) Imputation that someone is incompetent dishonest or unfit in reference to workplace,

profession, calling, trade or business carried on by him.

4) Imputation of extramarital sex to any feminine is additionally unjust in and of itself.

(Slander of women’s act, 1891)

INDIAN LAW:

Both libel and slander are criminal offences under the IPC. (Section 499)

Both Slander and Libel are actionable per se.

ESSENTIALS:

To constitute the tort of defamation, the following essentials are required to be proved-

1) STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY IN NATURE.

Defamation is that the publication that tends to lower the name of the person within the eyes
of right thinking folks or that tends to create them shun or avoid that person.
An imputation that exposes one to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt is denigrate.

It perhaps oral, in writing, written or by the exhibition of an image, sculpture or image or by

some conduct.
Thus, if a municipal council out of sick can and malice and while not justification served a
notice of distained warrant and taken piece of furniture and books of active advocate, the
conduct of municipal corporation quantity to defamation.

Page 9 of 20
2) THE STATEMENT SHOULD BE REFERRING TO THE RESPECTIVE PLAINTIFF.

The plaintiff should prove that the suspect statement of that he complains refers to him. It’s
immaterial that the suspect failed to denigrate the plaintiff. If the person to whom the
statement printed might fairly infer that the statement brought up the plaintiff, the suspect is
still liable.

3) THE STATEMENT REFERRING TO PLAINTIFF MUST HAVE BEEN

PUBLISHED.

The statement should be ‘published’ to a 3rd party, who cannot even be the one who is being
defamed. Business enterprise during this context doesn't mean that it should be written,
however strictly that the statement has got to be ‘made available’ to somebody aside from the
person concerning whom the statement was created.

THE INNUENDO CONCEPT

It happens sometimes that statement it itself be innocent but due to some innocent or latent
meaning it may be considered as a defamatory. The plaintiff must proof that the statement
contains some secondary or latent meaning so as to attain damages. That is called innuendo.

For instance: “X” is an honest man. He never stole my purse, maybe a defamatory statement
if the person to whom the statement was made understand that X is a dishonest man and he
has stolen the purse.

DEFENCES:

A Lot of defences have been pleaded. Some of them are as follows:

JUSTIFICATION OR TRUTH

Truth is considered as a complete defence under the law of torts defamation cases. Just
by proving a statement true your case will be at a better hand. The reason that is stated
is that nobody should escape from his liability in respect of any injury of character
which he does not possess. The defence is available even if it is made maliciously.

Page 10 of 20
FAIR COMMENT

If in matters of public interest of the society certain fair comments are made; these
could be considered as a good defence.

The requirements are as follows:

1) It should be a comment i.e. an expression of opinion rather than a fact asserted.

2) It should be a fair comment.

3) It should be made in public interest.

PRIVILEGE

In some cases the law recognises the right of free speech overweighting to the
plaintiff’s reputation.

The privilege are of two types:

ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE

In such cases no action lies even if malicious or false statements are made. Individual
right reputation should give way to freedom of speech.

It applies on the following cases:

Parliamentary Proceedings

Judicial Proceedings

State Communications

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

Page 11 of 20
It is different from the absolute privilege. It is necessary in this case that the statement
made should be made without malice.

There must be an occasion for making the statement.

It is usually made when made in discharge of duty or protection of interest or if the

publication is made in the form of parliamentary, judicial or other public proceedings.

DEFAMATION UNDER MEDIA.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DEFAMATION BY TELEVISION:

The English and American law are alone among the nice system in creating a differentiation
between libel and slander as styles of action in slanderous publication. there's a very
important sensible distinction between the 2 action since, with bound restricted exceptions,
slander is unjust as long as the complainant proves special damages , whereas in libel action
the jury might award substantial sums to complete the supposed hurt to the name of the
complainant, while not proof that any harm has indeed occurred.
Although the excellence has been criticized; it's none the less still followed by the courts.
Recently, the courts have applied this ancient distinction to defamation by tv.

ORIGIN OF DISTINCTION:

In the sixteenth century the sole common law remedy reasonable for defamation was
associate degree action on the case for words, with injury not mere insult, the essential
criterion. The threat of the machine to associate degree absolute autocracy but resulted within
the adaption of Justinian code for written defamation that through the implementation of the
Star Chamber became the law of libel. Seditious libel poignant the protection of the state
moreover as non-public libels resulting in breaches of peace were thought-about as crimes
and truth was allowed as a defence only if the words weren't seditious.

Page 12 of 20
DEFAMATION IN MEDIA TRIALS

RELEVANT CASES:

CASE 1.

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929]1

FACTS:

The claimant was the wife of a famous race horse owner and he was also known as the
former general of Mexican army. They used to live separately but the husband used to visit
his lawful wife at times. The defendant newspaper published a photograph of the claimant’s
husband with a random women who was stated as Miss X – with whom he was engaged as
stated by the respective article.

HELD:

The court of appeal held that the publication in question amounted to defamation as it was
reasonable for the right thinking mind of the society to believe that the character of the
plaintiff was questionable. It was intended to assume that the husband was living with her
immorally. Therefore, the defendant was held liable.

CASE 2

In Slipper v. British Broadcasting Corp. 2

1
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd. | All ER 495 (HL)
2
Slipper v. British Broadcasting Corp 1 QB 283 (1991)

Page 13 of 20
FACTS:

The plaintiff a retired police officer claimed that he had been portrayed as an “incompetent
buffoon” on a television program. Based on the purview of the programme shown by the
defendants to the press at television journalists, a number of reviews appeared on the
newspapers and magazine which portrayed the plaintiff in a negative light.

HELD:

In addition to being held liable for defamatory portrayal of the plaintiff, the defendants were
also held liable for the foreseeable repetition of that defamation by other persons in media.

CASE 3

Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath3

FACTS:

In this case, the defendant who was the publisher, editor and printer of a newspaper published
an article in the newspaper alleging that the plaintiff, a block development officer, had issued
false certificates, adopted illegal means and accepted bribes.

HELD:

In this action, the defendant could not prove the facts as stated to be true so he was held libel
for defamation.

Such defamatory statements cannot be warded off under the era of freedom of press under
article 19(1) (a) of the constitution as ruled.

CASE 4

K.S Sundaram V. S. Vishwanathan4

3
Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR (1985)Bom 285 (INDIA)
4

Page 14 of 20
FACTS:

The publisher published an article in the newspaper on the basis of performance of a

company of which the plaintiff was the president. It discussed about the deterioration of the
management.

HELD:

The case was decided on the favour of the defendant as the defamation suit filed by plaintiff
was dismissed seeking injunction and damages, the madras HC held that the article
contained fair comment so no case for defamation can be entertained.

CASE 55

Wagner V. Harbour Radio (Australia)

FACTS:

The Wagner case involved allegations that, as owners of the damn itself, the Wagner’s were
responsible for those killed when its wall collapsed upon them during floods in 2011. The
maker of the broadcast, Alan Jones of 2GB, made 76 defamatory imputations against the
Wagner’s over the course of 27 radio broadcasts.

HELD:

The Court considered the defamatory statements to be of the highest seriousness, implicating
the four Wagner’s in multiple deaths. An award of $3.7m in damages was made in total, with
each of the claimants receiving a substantial award of aggravated damages due to Jones
“vicious and spiteful” conduct.

Following the reduction in Rebel Wilson’s damages in her defamation case this case re-
affirms the principle that, in Australian defamation cases, the Court will permit substantial
awards of aggravated damages where there is reprehensible conduct by the claimant. In doing

5
Wagner v. Harbour Radio (2018) QSC 201, (AUSTRALIA)

Page 15 of 20
so awards for similarly serious imputations easily surpass the statutory cap of $398,500 on
general damages.

CASE 66

Salenadandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy

FACTS:

In the respective case the plaintiff was involved in the rape of a harijan women. An FIR was
published against him and on the basis of the FIR the news got published in the Telugu Daily.
However, the publication gave and exaggerated version and false facts of the following case
and due to the same the plaintiff was misfit to continue with his profession as a lawyer. So
the plaintiff filed a suit.

HELD:

It was held that due to the false exaggerated statements made in a reckless manner without
verifying the truth would constitute defamation and therefore the plaintiff was awarded with
damages.

CASE 7

KNUPFFER V LONDON NEWSPAPER7

FACTS:

Knupffer (K) was the head of country branch of the Young Russia Party. The respondents
revealed a news article in 1941 that alleged association between Adolf Hitler and therefore
the Party. While K wasn't named separately within the article, witnesses at trial intimated that
they understood the article as pertaining to K. K was flourishing in his libel claim at trial.

HELD:

6
A.I.R 2009 (NOC) 299 (A.P.)
7
Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. | All ER 495 (HL)

Page 16 of 20
It was held that in libel cases the key question was whether the words were published “of the
plaintiff” as an individual rather that whether they were spoken of a class. Acc. to the House
of Lords a class of people cannot be defamed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

CASE 8

MR. PARSHURAM BABARAM SAWANT VS. TIMES NOW8

FACTS:

Justice Sawant had sued the news channel for displaying his photograph wrong throughout
telecast of a news broadcast on September ten, 2008 on a Provident Fund scam allegedly
involving a metropolis tribunal decide. The report had erroneously showed Justice Sawant’s
photograph.

HELD:

The image was on air for fifteen seconds. The Bombay High Court had ordered the channel
to deposit Rs. 20 crore in cash and give a bank guarantee of Rs. 80 crore to it as damages that
the judge sought. It was published so will be liable.

CASE 9

DIVYA SPANDANA VS. SUVARNA NEWS 24*79

FACTS:

Ms Spandana filed the defamation case against Suvarna News 24X7, a Kannada news
channel, and Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd., its holding firm. And its holding company in
2013 over two reports aired on the channel about her being involved in IPL cricket betting.

HELD:
8
Rustom K Karanjia v. Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey | AIR 1970 BOBAY 1874 and
Malwa strips Private Limited v. Jyoti Limited |(2009) 2 SCCC 426
9

Page 17 of 20
The case was decided in favour of the plaintiff as the statement that was published was false.
So no defence could be given. This was a defamatory statement that was published.

CASE 10

Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd. 10

FACTS:

The plaintiff was a golf champion. In the advertisement of the defendant’s chocolate “there
appeared a caricature of Mr. Tolley hitting one of its most vigorous drives, with a carton of
Fry’s chocolate in his hand and comparing in doggerel verse the excellence of drive with the
excellence of chocolate”. It was not communicated to the plaintiff and he made no benefits
out of it. But the advertisement meant that he had agreed to portray himself in the respective
advertisement for the defendant’s chocolate. And that he was seeking notoriety and gains and
prostituted his reputation as a amateur golf player for advertising purpose.

HELD:

The plaintiff said that he had suffered in his credit and reputation due the the act done above.
It was held that the innuendo that the plaintiff has prostituted his status for advertising was
supported by the facts and the advertisement was therefore, defamatory for a man at his
position.

10
Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd. (1931) A.C. 333

Page 18 of 20
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Tort is concerned with the allocation or prevention of losses, which are bound to occur in our
society. It is obvious that any society of people living together do contribute to some sort of
torts which also includes defamation. Here in certain cases it was seen that defamation by
media has been done a lot of times without any prior thought or view. But the judgement
passed by the courts have done justice. Also it should be notes that the tort of defamation has
remedies available for the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation to put the plaintiff back to
the position where he/she was before the damage was committed. Tort gives you justice in
getting you compensation for your mental health.

Also, in India most of the people are not so aware of the facts of what can lead to defamation.
So there is a lack of awareness. Apart from the difficulties in proving the claims, the delay in
the court decisions is also one of the reasons. If these obstacles are removed, India would be
able to witness growth in torts especially in the tort of defamation. But yes, it could be said
that the courts provide sufficient remedies for the damage done.

Page 19 of 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOOKS REFFERED:

 R.S Pillai
 The law of torts, Dr.R.K. Bangia

WEBSITES REFFERED:

www.indiankanoon.org

www.legalservicesinida.com

www.lawteacher.net

Page 20 of 20