Law of Torts |
Semester -I
THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,
BHOPAL
_____________________________________________
LAW OF TORTS
PROJECT
PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT:
AN ESSENTIAL IN TORT OF DEFAMATION
Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Kushagra Tiwari
Prof.(Dr.) Rajiv Khare
Roll No.- 2022BSCLLB01
Enrollment No. – BS0001
FIRST SEMESTER
B.Sc. LL. B. (Hons.) [Cyber Security]
I
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
Declaration
I, Kushagra Tiwari, S/o Rakesh Tiwari, Roll Number 2022BSCLLB01 Enrolment Number
BS-0001 do hereby declare that the Project titled “PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT:AN
ESSENTIAL IN TORT OF DEFAMATION” is an outcome of my own independent research
endeavour and has been carried out under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare.
Literature“relied on by me for the purpose of this Project has been fully and completely
acknowledged in the footnotes and bibliography. The Project is not plagiarized and all
reasonable steps have been taken to avoid plagiarism. In case, my project is found to be
plagiarized, the course teacher shall have the full liberty to ask me to revise the Project. If I fail
to comply with the instructions of the teacher, my project may be referred to the Committee
Against Use of Unfair Means and I will comply with the decision of the said Committee.”
II
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The“Unwavering support of my friends, family, and teachers has enabled this initiative to take
place. I'd like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Vice-Chancellor (Dr.) V. Vijaykumar, Prof.
(Dr.) Rajiv Khare for helping me through the development of this work into a cohesive whole
by sharing their outstanding expertise and providing useful insight. I'd also like to express my
gratitude to the NLIU Gyan Mandir Library's staff for assisting me in locating acceptable
research materials for this work.”I“owe a huge debt of gratitude to my parents, grandparents,
and friend for their unwavering moral support and encouragement.”
Kushagra Tiwari
2022BSCLLB01
III
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
Contents
Declaration ............................................................................................................................................. II
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. - 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................................ - 2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM .......................................................................................................... - 2 HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................................................................... - 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................... - 3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. - 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... - 3 TORT OF DEFAMATION ................................................................................................................ - 4 PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT .................................................................................................. - 6 CYBER DEFAMATION ................................................................................................................... - 8 SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE Vs MULTIPLE PUBLICATION RULE ..................................... - 9 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY................................................................................................. - 12 -
IV
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
INTRODUCTION
Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from
a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage
to property, he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also
liable under the law.
Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower
him in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or
avoid him.
Under Indian law, defamation is both a criminal (punishable with imprisonment) as well as civil offence
(punishable through the award of damages). Defamation is defined in section 499 Indian Penal Code
1860
Defamation as a civil offence is punishable under the law of torts.
For any defamation action under civil law of torts or criminal law, to be successful, fundamentally four
essentials’ elements are to be proved before the adjudicating authority–

The statement must be defamatory;

It should refer to the plaintiff;

Publication of it by defendant; and

The statement must be substantially untrue.
Tort of defamation has few defences available for the defendant1. Justification of truth
2. Fair comment
3. Privilege
4. Limitation
5. Secondary Responsibility
In case of a criminal action penal provision apply, whereas in case of civil action in case of defamation
monetary compensation is given.
-1-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The following books, articles and research papers have been referred for conducting the
research for this project: 1. The Law of Torts– Author: R.K. Bangia
This renowned textbook of law of torts by noted jurist and writer R.K.
Bangia provides in depth knowledge of Torts, which also includes Torts of
Defamation.
2. Defamation: Law, Procedure and Practice - Author: David Price
This book provides detailed explanation of tort of defamation, essentials of
defamation and its various aspects. It also includes influential cases and
offer fresh tips on the matter of defamation. This book’s strength lies in its
user—friendly, universal appeal and its breadth of coverage.
3. Tort Law: Text and Materials- Author: Mark Lunney & Ken Oliphant
This book elaborates on Torts of defamation with the help of various cases. This
books helpful because of its unique clarity of layout and its foucused coverage
helps in easy understanding.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Publication of statement is an essential in tort of defamation, but there is ambiguity as to what
encompasses publication of statement. There is also uncertainty as to should be held liable when it
comes to publishing of statement over the internet.
-2-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
HYPOTHESIS
Analyse the basics of Tort of Defamation and the essentials elements to constitute tort of defamation
and what constitutes under “publication of statement”.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What is tort of defamation?
 What are the essential elements of tort of defamation?
 What encompasses “publication of defamation”?
 What is “publication of statement” in cyberspace?
 Who should be held liable when it defamatory statements are published over the internet?
 What is the difference between single publication rule and multiple publication rule?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives of this project:
 To understand the basics of tort of defamation.
 To study the essentials required to constitute tort of defamation.
 To study the essential-publication of statement.
 To understand publication of statement in domain of cyberspace.
 To study the some cases related to publication of statement in defamation
 To study the difference between single publication rule and multiple publication rule.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method of the project is doctrinal, analytical and descriptive that includes perusal of books,
articles, research papers and other online resources to examine and understand the publication of
statement an essential to tort of defamation
-3-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
TORT OF DEFAMATION
With the start of sixteenth century, the fact that civil laws protected personal reputation was a wellestablished fact. This very well pre-dates recognition of human rights.
In the domain of tort law, no tort attracts more attention and controversy than the tort of defamation.
The amalgamation of celebrities, high-profile personalities, scandals, and stories often ends with
million-dollar lawsuits and front-page coverage around the globe. But under all this flash and glamour
lie matters of serious concern relating to maintaining equilibrium between freedom of speech and
expression and people’s reputation and their personal interests.
What is a defamatory statement?
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation;
decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile,
or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Defamation can be of civil nature or criminal nature. For now, we’re concerned with the civil aspect of
defamation and its essentials.
Defamation as civil wrong can be divided into two categories- libel and slander.
Libel- Libel is defamation through written words, pictures, or any other visual medium, usually which
is permanent.
Slander- Slander is when a person is defamed by spoken words.
The major difference between libel and slander is that libel is actionable per se and slander is actionable”
only if “special damage” is shown.
What“statements are defamatory and the span of defences varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but
there is common agreement in all jurisdictions that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome,
embarrassing or hurt one’s feelings are not actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is the
potential to injure the reputation.”
-4-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
The appellant must prove that the defendant is the one who made a defamatory comment, which in the
understanding of a reasonable man will be regarded defamatory and refers to the appellant," in order
for a claim to fall under the definition of defamation.
The defendant's responsibility cannot be established by merely showing these circumstances.
For a better grasp of defamation law and its practise, one must understand and be aware of what each
side must prove. The only time a defamatory claim is deemed libellous or slanderous is when the
defendant has not succeeded in establishing a defence.
In a media libel case, the appellant typically has no trouble proving their case because the piece will
have been published to a wide audience and include the defamed person's name. It can be challenging
to demonstrate that an article's contents are in fact defamatory, but whether or not the accused is able
to establish a defence is the crucial issue in defamation proceedings. The majority of literature on this
subject focus on the requirements that the claimant must meet, leaving out the fact that culpability in
defamation cases occurs when the defendant is unable to properly show one of the various defences.
The most serious defamatory allegations, which destroys a claimant’s reputation and livelihood, can be
disseminated with impunity if, for example, they proved to be true or are published on a privilege
occasion.
The aforementioned remark implies that the claimant must conduct a thorough study of both the issues
he must prove and the arguments he will use to refute the defendant's defences against liability. In order
to establish a claim for defamation, for instance, "the appellant has no initial requirement to prove that
the remarks were inaccurate, but if the defendants attempt to prove the truth of the claims, the appellant
must be ready with the facts to oppose this." Even in this situation, the claimant must be ready with the
information and proof to refute the defendant's argument that he was not the one who caused the remarks
to be published.
We can broadly say that three essentials need to be proved to establish a claim of defamation1. That the statement published was defamatory.
2. That the statement was published and the defendant was responsible for its publication.
3. That the published statement would reasonably be interpreted to refer to the claimant.
4. That the published statement must be false.
The claimant must prove each of the three essentials to satisfy his claim of defamation and the defendant
must prove against the three essentials to be not liable for the tort of defamation.”
-5-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
We are in detail going to discuss the second essential, that is publication of statement, but before that
lets discuss the three other essentials briefly1. The statement must be defamatory- As specified above, a defamatory statement is one which
injures a person’s reputation. The traditional test as to whether or not a statement was
defamatory is to ask whether the words were ‘calculated to injure the reputation of another by
exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule’1. Lord Atkin suggested a broader test to ask the
question that ‘would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking
members of the society generally?’2”
‘To write or say of a man something that will disparage him in the eyes of a particular section of the
community but will not affect his reputation in the eyes of the average right-thinking man is not
actionable within defamation’3
2. Statement must refer to the claimant- Generally in a defamatory statement the claimant is
named, but in certain cases there might not be clear mention of the defamed person. A person
who shares the same name as the intended target might also sue.
PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT
Publication is the technical term for the communication of the defamatory sentences by the defendant
to at least one person other than the claimant.4 The publication may take many different forms, including
spoken word, radio, electronic transmission, and smoke signals. Since everyone who contributed to the
publication or distribution of the statement—i.e., everyone who caused it to be published—will be held
accountable for what is said in print, holding merely the statement's originator responsible is not
necessary for publication.
In a defamation action, the publishing is typically not the key point at issue. The commercial publisher
or broadcaster will be the claimant in libel cases involving newspapers or television. The fact of
publication will be undisputed, but there may be disagreement over the volume or impact of circulation,
1
Parmiter v. Coupland [1840] 6 M&W 105.
Sim v. Sim [1936] 52 TLR 669
3
Tolley v. Fry [1930] 1 KB 467
4
Pullman v. Hill & Co. [1891] 1 Q.B. 524. Communication from husband to wife is not publication, Wennhak v.
Morgan [1888] 20 QBD 635. Communication to one spouse of material about the other is publication, Watt v.
Longsdon [1930] 1 K.B. 130.
2
-6-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
which may be significant to the damages. The issue will come up in situations where it is unclear who
is the true publisher or when the claimant wants to file a lawsuit against a person who was not principally
responsible for the publishing of the defamatory words.
Not the act of creation but the act of communication of defamatory material constitutes tort of
defamation.“Each communication to a third party of the defamatory statements constitutes an
independent tort.5 Anyone who participates in or authorizes the publication is held jointly liable under
general principles. The publication of any item usually involves many people.”For example,“the author
of a newspaper article submits copy and the editor decides whether to publish or not. The article is then
printed and distributed by the main distributor and local wholesalers, who in turn deliver to local
retailers who sell it to the eventual reader.”Courts“in the eighteenth century were mainly concerned
with preventing dissemination of what was perceived to be seditious or blasphemous libels and the net
liability was very widely spread.6 Applying these authorities to modern media is not always
straightforward.”
The editor, publishers, and author will be held accountable through newspapers and other printed media.
Sub-editors frequently make modifications to the author's version. These alterations won't have an
impact on the author's culpability because the content will remain unchanged. Even if they are not aware
that the publication contains defamatory content, "Printers" and distributors are nevertheless presumed
to be at fault. However, the defence of secondary responsibility offers some protection.
Broadcasters: The same rules that apply to publications also apply to them. The main publisher is a
commercial broadcaster. Additionally accountable are the editor and the presenter. Even if the
broadcaster had no direct influence over the offender, he would still be held accountable. Therefore,
although the defence of secondary responsibility may be viable, caution should be exercised when
dealing with studio audiences, visitors, phone-ins, and live broadcasts.
Letters: "It is assumed that a poster letter is published to its addressee in cases of letters. If the claimant
is the addressee, he will need to locate a different reader in order to prove publication. This person can
be a worker for the sender or the claimant who may have read the letter while doing his or her job.
However, "the sender will not be responsible where he had no knowledge and no basis to suspect that
it would be read by another person." It is preferable to make it obvious that the letter is personal and
should only be opened by the addressee because in many situations letters are opened by staff of the
addressee.
5
6
Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer [1849] 14 Q.B. 185.
R. v. Clerk [1728] 1 Barn. K.B. 304 and R. v. Walter [1799] 3 Esp. 21.
-7-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
Cyberspace- With the rise of social networks, content aggregation sites and online commentary, the risk
of defamatory statements reaching a broader audience has increased tremendously in recent years. Sites
are designed to encourage sharing of sensational information without any fact checking or regulation.
Today’s world is one which lives in cyberspace, it has become an integral part of many of our lives and
defamation on cyberspace is something we all have witnessed or maybe even faced. We need to discuss
this in detail to get a better understanding as to what is Cyber Defamation.
CYBER DEFAMATION
The“accessibility of internet to common has changed everyone’s lives forever. The platform provided
by the internet has made human interaction easier than ever. However, such increase in conveyance of
communication has proportionally increased the inconvenience caused by the abuse of the mediums of
communication.”Removing barriers to freedom of interaction, has given unfettered capabilities,
primarily on social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit etc., where people post
unnecessary and false statements about a person or entity and thereby harming their goodwill and
reputation. Such an act, though colloquially known as trolls, actually amounts to cyber defamation.
Cyber“defamation occurs when a computer connected to the internet is used as a tool, or a medium to
defame a person or an entity. For example, publishing of a defamatory statement against a person on a
social networking site such as Facebook,”or“sending of emails containing defamatory content about a
person with an intention to defame him/her. Further, given the broad coverage of internet and the rate
of dissemination of information on this platform, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of damage in any
monetary value.”
Although,“the medium of committing this act has changed but the same rules apply here as well. The
liability regarding cyber defamation in India can be:
1. On the author of the defamatory material online;”
2. On“the service provider or an intermediary. However, it is pertinent to note that as per Section
79 of the IT Act, 2000, an intermediary shall not be liable if it does not initiate or modify such
defamatory content but merely act as a facilitator.”Further,“this protection is also subject to the
condition that the intermediary shall comply with the due diligence and Intermediary
Guidelines requirements issued by the Central Government and also remove such unlawful
content on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency or upon receiving actual
knowledge.”
-8-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
The dilemma in the case of publication of defamatory material in Cyber Space is which rule must be
adopted by the courts, The Single Publication Rule or The Multiple Publication Rule?
SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE Vs MULTIPLE
PUBLICATION RULE
An“important ingredient of the offense of Defamation is the requirement of 'publication' i.e., the
communication of the defamatory matter to third persons. Therefore, the cause of action for defamation
arises on the 'date of publication'. The limitation period for defamation is one year, which also begins
to run from the date the libel was published.”
Single Publication Rule
Under this rule, "any form of mass communication or aggregate publication is a single communication
and can give rise to only one action for libel." The rule applies "where communication is simultaneously
available to multiple persons." Under the single-publication rule, the statement is considered published
and "the statute of limitations runs as soon as the communication enters the stream of commerce."
Multiple Publication Rule
Under“this rule, a fresh cause of action arises for every moment the offending matter is left on a
webpage. So, the 'date of publication' and the limitation period for the offense of libel lose significance.”
Therefore, the question that arises here is which date should the cause of action be related to?
VIEW OF THE COURTS OF UNITED KINGDOM
Initial view
Courts“in the United Kingdom adhered to the Multiple Publication Rule for a very long time. The case
of Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, in which the Duke was given a copy of a newspaper that included
text that was defamatory of him but had been published 17 years previously, is an illustration of an
older perspective of UK courts on this concept.”The“Court ruled that the six-year limitation period re-9-
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
started when Duke viewed the article, upholding the damages claim as being within the statute of
limitations.”However,“in the Internet age, each click on a webpage containing offensive material will
represent a new publication and, therefore, a new cause of action, allowing the person who was defamed
to pursue a defamation action even after a number of years of the article's online publication.”
The“UK's Defamation Act 2013, which obtained Royal Assent on April 25, 2013, went into effect on
January 1st, 2014. Defamation law before the Act was composed of common law and supported by the
1952 and 1996 Defamation Acts.”The“Most current Act has modernised and codified this aspect of the
law, especially with regard to how defamatory online content is handled. The Act primarily affects
England and Wales, while some of its provisions also have an impact on Scotland.”
The“Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer Multiple Publication Rule has been repealed by Section 8 of this
Act, which also upholds the constitutional Single Publication Rule.”
“Section 8 of this legislation has done away with the long prevailing Multiple Publication Rule laid
down in Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer and has upheld the legally sound Single Publication rule. The
section reads as follows:”
The following part is described:" Section 8: Single publishing. According to Section 8 of the Act, any
subsequent publications of the same statement will be considered part of the original publication when
it is made public (unless the manner of publication is materially different). This single publication rule,
which supersedes the old "many publication" rule that said that each publication restarted the limitation
period, intends to defend defendants from claims brought long after the initial publication. The“main
justification for the single publishing rule is that, up until this point, whenever libelous content was
accessed through a website, it was considered to have been published again, and the one-year limitation
period would once again begin. However, the court's discretion will not be impacted by Section 8 of the
Act. allowing a claim to continue after the statute of limitations has passed.
- 10 -
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
VIEW OF THE INDIAN COURTS
The“IT Act of 2000 marked India's entry into the world of the internet, but it made no mention of torts
like defamation in the online world. Therefore, Indian courts were applying the common law principle
of multiple publication in regards to cyberslander because defamation over the internet is regarded as a
type of libel. There would, however, have been very few instances in this respect.”
The Limitation Act of 1963 establishes a one-year limitation term for libel, which means that with every
visit to the website that included the offensive material, the one-year limitation period was renewed,
providing the Defendant a longer period of time the Libel can carry on for years.
In November 2013, Delhi High Court Justice Vipin Sanghi made a ruling on online defamation in the
matter of Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir. In this major decision, the Delhi High Court rejected the
Multiple Publication Rule and adopted the Single Publication Rule for Libel on the Internet.
Facts and Ruling in Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir Case
Facts
Khawar Butt, the plaintiff, sued Asif Nazir Mir and others for defamation with the intention of
recouping losses and getting an injunction from the court. Butt asserted that they published
false articles about his extramarital liaison with Mir's wife in a brochure and on Facebook. The
Facebook content was posted on either October 25, 2008, or October 27, 2008. Reports state
that the pamphlet was made available on December 25, 2008. On February 11th, 2010, it was
filed. The issue is whether the litigation has run its course. According to Entry 75 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the time restriction for filing a case to collect libel
damages is one year from the date the libel was published. Butt argued: Facebook sharing the
article gave rise to a permanent cause of action as it was like a new publication every time the
allegedly defamatory article was still accessible there. He asserted that the special features of
online content, which, in contrast to print media, permit voluntary withdrawal of publication at
any time, made this imperative.
Decision Overview
- 11 -
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
Vipin,“Sanghi, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court examined the two rules
regarding limitation in defamation cases: the multiple publication rule (every time the allegedly
defamatory material is published or republished, it creates a discrete actionable defamatory”
statement upon which one can sue) and the single publication rule (the limitation period begins
at the time of the first publication of the allegedly defamatory material,“even if content remains
online or copies continue to be sold later). The Court noted that the U.K. (until recently),
Australia, Canada, and Germany follow the multiple publication rule. On the other hand, the
U.K. (present law), United States, and France follow the single publication rule.”
The Court decided that the single publication rule should be adopted because it is more sensible
and appropriate. The purpose of the law of limitations is to prevent use of the remedy after the
deadline. This policy underlying the law of limitations would be thwarted if the mere existence
of allegedly defamatory content on the website would be sufficient to provide a continuous
cause of action. However, if the content is redistributed with the intention of reaching a new or
wider public audience, it would give rise to a new cause of action.
The statute of limitations for this lawsuit expired on December 25, 2009, in accordance with
the facts of the case and the application of the statute of limitations. After this time, Butt
brought the lawsuit. Because of limitation, the lawsuit was dismissed.
Case Summary and Outcome
The Delhi High Court adopted the single publication rule when it was considering a case
involving a defamatory Facebook comment. The plaintiff, Khawar Butt, filed the lawsuit
against Asif Nazir Mir and others for defamation and sought damages as well as a court-ordered
injunction. Because it amounted to a new publication each time the allegedly defamatory
content was still available on the website, Butt argued that the posting on Facebook gave rise
to a continuous cause of action. The Court concluded that the goal of the law of limitations
would be defeated if the existence of alleged defamatory content on a website would be
sufficient to provide a continuous cause of action.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The tort of defamation is as old as new it is. It has been around for a very long time and it’s going to be
around because defamation is something we all face in our lives at some point of time. The difference
- 12 -
Law of Torts |
Semester -I
is that many of us aren’t aware of what comprises defamation and what are the essentials required to
constitute defamation. We all use the internet and among its many benefits, one of the drawbacks of
internet is it makes us vulnerable to cyber defamation. Online, any one can say anything to us and we
might not even know who that person is. These defamatory statements may take a toll on someone and
affect their mental health.
Defamatory Statements can be very injurious to reputation of people, specially in cyberspace where any
information right or wrong spreads like forest fire and before one might know his house can be set
ablaze by statements of an anonymous user who published a statement thinking that he wont get caught
in cyberspace.
One needs to know his rights to protect himself against various forms of defamation. The awareness
needs to increase because these statements are very harmful vis-à-vis person’s standing in the society
and condition of their mental health, which is very severely affected when they receive these statements.
In cyber space these statements can be in huge numbers, as one user might be using different accounts
to publish many statements, or seeing one user publish something defamatory about someone others
might also get influenced in doing the same. In cyberspace one doesn’t really think about the
repercussions of his actions because one assumes he doesn’t know the person personally or the person
won’t find who published the statement but there are ways to find out who did what in cyberspace and
the culprit can be traced and plaintiff can be redressed given the plaintiff knows this and complains
about it. For this the aggrieved needs to know his rights and what constitutes defamation.
- 13 -