In the words of Dr.

Winfield “Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person

Defamation may be a civil charge or a criminal charge under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.

Section 499 Of IPC:- Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is
said to defame that person.

Section 500 of IPC:- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years or with fine or both.

Defamation is tort resulting from an injury to ones reputation. It is the act of harming the reputation of
another by making a false statement to third person. Defamation is an invasion of the interest in
reputation. The law of defamation is supposed to protect people’s reputation from unfair attack. In
practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. Defamation
law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-defamation-in-india/

Defamation vs. Freedom of Speech

The defamation law acts as a counter-balance to the constitutional right to freedom of expression
[guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India]. This article has been widely read through
judicial interpretations to include “freedom of the press”. But this freedom is not absolute, as Article
19(2) allows the state to make laws that place “reasonable restrictions” on such freedoms. The
restrictions are wide-ranging, including circumstances, among other things, in national interest; for
maintaining public order; or in relation to contempt of court, or defamation.

The exemption given under Article 19(2) allows prosecution of both civil and criminal defamation in India
with criminal provisions (under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code). The offense of
defamation occurs when a person “makes or publishes” something about another person with the
intention, knowledge of, or reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the other.

An allegation “damages” a person’s reputation if it lowers the person’s character or credit. A dead person
may also be affected if an imputation would have caused damage to the person’s reputation, if they were
alive, and intended to hurt that dead person’s family. The allegations relating to a company are also
defamatory.

Conclusion

The law of defamation seeks to ensure individual reputation. Its focal issue is how to reconcile this
purpose with the competing demands for a speech. Both Reputation and freedom of speech are building
block in the society. The previous as maybe the most beyond a reasonable doubt prized characteristic of
civilized human beings while the latter the very foundation of a democratic society. The apex Court gave
an interim time frame of about eight weeks to the petitioner within which they can challenge.
Meanwhile, different cases have likewise emerged particularly in the political form, for example,
defamation case filed against Mr Gogoi or the alleged arrest of comedian Kiku Sharda. The decision
carries a conclusion to the case however brings up specific issues afterwards. For example, a progressive
economy like India is resorting to penal provisions justified especially in an era, where reformative justice
is supplanting retributive justice.

Other than this developing narrow mindedness in the country is another issue which may get a reason
due to this judgment. In such circumstances, there becomes a need to shed one’s inhibition and discuss
a viable solution. One such recommendation in this area would be the right to reply. This has been
discussed before. Nonetheless, owing to the chilling effect which might be incumbent on the
individual /organization; the right to reply just added to the skepticism. In any case, the right to reply
shows up as a civilized manner to address matter instead of jumping on the conclusion, indicting, and
seeking damages. Some US states and different nations have imbibed up this idea.

Certainly, we also can use this idea. The discussion brings us to the point that in cases of Constitutional
interpretation, the stakes become higher. It is easy to criticize rather than get into the profundities of the
issue. Of course, a healthy criticism fosters creativity and growth. Nowadays, it is easy to have a critical
approach rather than get into the skin of the matter. Also, it cannot be ignored that the judiciary tries its
best to give a harmonious construction in such matters. As citizens, we too, have a responsibility– it is
time to revisit ourselves[xvii].

Conclusion
Defamation is antithetical to reputation, fame, public image, earned by a person in his or her lifetime
and therefore a valued asset for an individual. Damages are to be dealt with in consonance with the
prevailing law of the land, The courts have rightly balanced the freedom of speech, expression with
reasonable restriction to that of the right to life with dignity for an individual, equally important, and no
less valued in public life.

The wisdom of the lawmakers are reflected in treating slander and label at par with each other, by
necessarily checking the misuse of weaker provisions. Similarly, malicious intent to harm and test of
criminality in a statement for criminal defamation is meant to dissuade persons to resort to such
practices. It is the brilliance and collective wisdom of our institutions that has upheld the principles
guaranteeing the rights, and ensuring continuity, progress and righteousness with balance by ensuring
justice.

CONCLUSION Defamation is a tort that occurs when someone's reputation is harmed. It is the act of
endangering another's reputation by making a false statement to a third party. Defamation is an
infringement on one's right to a good name. The harm to a person's reputation is the core of defamation
and he has a strong case against the defendants for this harm. Libel and slander are two types of
defamation. In India, both are considered criminal crimes. There are several exceptions to this, which are
referred to as privileges. The major goal of balancing the rights should be to practice one's freedom of
speech and expression without jeopardizing one's public image

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/defamation-a-tort-and-a-crime-14822.asp