Team  SoOLEGAL
DEFAMATION LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF MEDHA PATKAR CASE
Team SoOLEGAL 10 Jul 2024

DEFAMATION LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF MEDHA PATKAR CASE

A legal term known as "defamation" protects against false remarks that damage a person's or organization's reputation and undermine their moral integrity or social position.

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal defamation as: “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, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

Three essential components make up this offence:

(1) fabricating or disseminating any false information on an individual,

 
(2) Such imputations should have been made by words or phrases spoken or written, symbols, or other visual representations;

 

(3) they must have been made intentionally, having knowledge or having cause to suspect that the person in question would suffer damage to their reputation.

 

The act of defaming someone using written or printed words, images, or any other form that may be visually represented is known as libel. The defamatory comment is usually printed in books, periodicals, newspapers, and internet platforms and permanently documented. Libellous remarks are regarded as more damaging as they are persistent. Conversely, slander happens when disparaging remarks are expressed verbally or through non-verbal cues like signals or gestures. Slanderous remarks can occur in speeches, talks, or oral remarks; they are usually fleeting. Libel is typically seen as more harmful than slanderous words because of its transient character.

 

There are two kinds of defamation as described in the India law as civil and criminal defamation. In contrast to criminal defamation, which is governed by statute, civil defamation law is a body of tort law that has mostly evolved from court rulings in specific situations.
Civil Defamation is the term used to describe defamation instances in which the person who was wronged brings a private lawsuit to recover damages for the damage to their reputation. It is essentially a civil law issue. In civil defamation lawsuits, the plaintiff is usually granted monetary damages, which are meant to make up for the harm they have suffered.

The primary distinctions between criminal and civil defamation are as follows:

• In contrast to criminal defamation, which carries the possibility of imprisonment, fines, or both, civil defamation penalties are restricted to damages (monetary compensation).

• Compared to criminal defamation cases, the burden of proof in civil defamation cases is less onerous.

• Although there are many similarities between criminal and civil defamation, only criminal defamation necessitates the intent or knowledge element to be established, not civil defamation.

 

On July 1, Delhi's Saket court convicted activist and leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), Medha Patkar, to five months in prison in a criminal defamation case that dates back 23 years and was brought by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
Patkar was sued in 2001 by Saxena for allegedly defaming him in a press release headlined "true face of patriot" that was sent out on November 25, 2000. While serving as the Chief of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an NGO located in Ahmedabad, he had filed the petition.
When Patkar was the president of the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), an NGO with its headquarters in Ahmedabad, Saxena had launched a defamation lawsuit against him in 2001.

In 2000, Saxena released a commercial against Patkar's NBA, a group that opposes building dams across the Narmada River. Following the publishing of the advertising, Patkar released a press statement criticising Saxena. According to the communications, Saxena was acting as an agent of the Gujarati government and was "mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources before Bill Gates and Wolfensohn." Saxena filed a defamation complaint against Patkar in 2001, citing her press notice, in an Ahmedabad court. However, the case was eventually moved to Delhi in 2003 under the Supreme Court's direction. Patkar was found guilty by the court on May 24 of this year.

 
Additionally, Raghav Sharma, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Saket Courts, directed Patkar to compensate Saxena with Rs 10 lakh. However, the court stated that the punishment decision would be stayed for 30 days in order to allow Patkarile to file an appeal once it was announced. The court stated in its ruling that it did not impose a disproportionate one-year or two-year sentence on the convicted Patkar due to her advanced age and health concerns. The court observed in its ruling that Patkar's stated claim that Saxena was "pained with hawala transactions" was an attempt to link him to questionable and unlawful financial activities, which seriously damaged Saxena's status and image.

Defamation according to Section 356 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 states that whoever either by words spoken or written, symbols or publishes any statement about another person with the knowledge or belief that the defamed statement will cause harm to the reputation of that person.

It is crucial to comprehend defamation because it strikes a balance between the right to free speech and the obligation to preserve people's reputations. Although it is okay for people to voice their thoughts, this freedom should not include disseminating false information that might harm the reputation of others. Determining whether remarks are defamatory depends critically on the motivation behind them, including whether there was a purposeful desire to cause injury or a reasonable belief.

 
Conclusion, defamation is the act of using words, signs, or visual representations to make or publish false accusations that damage the reputation of a person or institution. It includes imputations regarding departed individuals, businesses, or organizations and might take the form of straightforward assertions or sardonically phrased substitutes.

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com