Content:-
English law historically distinguishes between libel and slander, categorising defamation actions based on the form of publication.
Slander: Transient Defamation
Slander involves the transient publication of defamatory statements, typically conveyed through spoken words or gestures.
Libel: Permanent Representation
Conversely, libel entails defamatory representations in a lasting form, such as writing, printing, images, or statutes. Even synchronised speech in mediums like cinema films can constitute libel, as observed in Youssoupoff v. M.G.M. Pictures Ltd.
Under English law, the distinction holds significance for several reasons:
Criminal Offence: While libel is recognized as a criminal offence, slander is not.
Actionability: Libel is actionable per se, meaning no proof of damage is required for legal action. In contrast, slander typically necessitates proof of special damage, except in exceptional cases outlined by statute.
Exceptional Cases of Slander
These include:
Imputation of criminal offences
Imputation of contagious diseases
Imputation of professional incompetence or dishonesty
Imputation of unchastity or adultery (as per the Slander of Women Act, 1891)
Indian Legal Perspective
Unlike English law, Indian law treats both libel and slander as criminal offences under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, there has been debate regarding the necessity of proving special damage in cases of slander.
In Parvathi v. Mannar and subsequent cases, Indian courts have questioned the requirement of special damage for slander, opting for a broader interpretation akin to libel. This approach prioritises protecting reputation without mandating proof of pecuniary harm.
In D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata, a defamatory news item adversely impacted the reputation and marriage prospects of the plaintiff. The court held that all defamatory words are actionable per se, entitling the plaintiff to general damages, exemplifying the legal principles regarding defamation in India.
Comments