Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Exception 1 to Defamation (S. 499 of IPC)
In the last article, we have studied the definition of criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with its explanations and exceptions. In this and the next few articles, we shall study exception 1 to defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in detail.
Definition of Defamation:
Section 499 para 1 defines 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”.
Essential Elements of Offence of Defamation:
- making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
- such imputation must have been made by-
- words, either spoken or intended to be read; or
- signs; or
- visible representations.
- such imputation must be made with the intention (mens rea) of harming or with the knowledge or with reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of that person.
- The imputation must not be covered by any one of the ten exceptions given in the Section.
Exceptions:
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation with Explanations and ten exceptions and a number of illustrations.
In Mohammad Nazir v. Emperor, AIR 1928 All 321 case, the Court while dismissing the plea of justification on the facts, described it as a “dangerous plea”. The Court observed: “The defendant in proceedings for defamation whether in a suit or under S. 500, IPC, is usually in a delicate and difficult position …. The first step to consider is what is the exact nature of the defence that can be set up. . . . The facts may be so strong that occasionally it may happen that the counsel can advise the client to “justify” …. That most dangerous plea should never be put forward unless there is practical certainty of success”.
Exception 1 to Section 499 of IPC:
Exception 1 to Section 499 of IPC:
Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published:
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
It is to be noted that out of ten exceptions enumerated in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the First and the Fourth exceptions do not mention the good faith aspect, but in all other exceptions emphasis is given to good faith in making the imputation.
Essential of the Exception 1 to Defamation Under Section 499 of IPC:
- The imputation should be true;
- The imputation should be published;
- Its publishing is for public good.
In Emperor v. Murat Singh, AIR 1934 All 904, 905 case, in an application before a magistrate for the appointment of a Mukhia, there was a statement made that a particular person was of “ bad character” and “a previous convict”. He complained of defamation. The defence of truth was put forth. No previous conviction was proved against him, though it was proved that he had committed adultery with his sister-in-law, by whom he had also an illegitimate child. It was held that the offence of adultery under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was a serious criminal offence, and, therefore, even if there was a statement about conviction which was not literally established, the evidence showed that he ought to have been convicted under section 497, thus indicating that the statement was substantially true. Therefore, the exception was held to be applicable.
In Damodara Shenoi v. P. P. Kerala, (1990) 1 Crimes 450 (Ker) case, Shri Vayalar Ravi was the Home Minister in the State cabinet during the period 1986. Five Kuwaiti citizens came to Kerala and they stayed at different places in Kerala who were included in the “prior reference category” and their entry into India was banned by the Government of India and as per the procedure prescribed their entry into Kerala should have been informed to the Government of India. It was alleged that the Home Minister Shri Vayalar Ravi permitted these Kuwaiti nationals to land at Trivandrum AirPort and they were treated as paying guests at the behest of the Home Minister. He deposed before the Court that he was not aware of the entry of foreign citizens till the matter was published in the English daily ‘Indian Express’. He also deposed that after knowing it, he took necessary punitive actions against concerned officers. The main defence of these two accused persons was that they are entitled to the benefit of exceptions 1, 8, and 9 of Section 499, I.P.C. The Court said that in order to attract the first exception to Section 499, I.P.C. it must be proved that the allegation is true. There was absolutely no evidence to show that the allegations contained in the original petition were true. The accused also could not produce any evidence to show that the Home Minister was responsible for the entry of 5 Kuwaiti nationals who were included in the ‘prior reference category. Court further held that the burden is on the accused to prove this fact. Whether a person took due care and attention before he made the imputation is a matter most often within the personal knowledge of that person himself. The accused must prove that he made due inquiries before he published the imputation. The Court disposed of criminal appeal and the revision petition.
In Lal Mohan Singh v. King Emperor, AIR 1950 Cal 339 case, the complainant was the owner of certain premises. One Amar Guha obtained possession of part of these premises and was treated as a tenant. Later, one Sitanath with the assistance of Amar Guha came into these premises and took possession of part of them. The complainant never recognized Sitanath as a tenant. Later Sitanath and Amar Guha fall apart. Amar Guha with help of some persons tried to occupy by force the part of the premises occupied by Sitanath and during this process manhandled Sitanath’s wife and daughter and caused considerable damage to the movable property of Sitanath. The petitioner wrote to the Swaraj Newspaper is that the landlord, the complainant in the case, was behind this attack by Amar Guha on Sitanath and that the attack was made as a result of a conspiracy between them. This was a serious allegation against the complainant. The Court said that the evidence does not show that the complainant was a party to these proceedings at all. In other words, the evidence which went to show that the allegations in this letter to the Swaraj were true, utterly failed. The Court further observed that if what is said is true then that is a defence. On the other hand, if there is a doubt as to whether it is true or not, there is no defence at all. The Court held that the defence of Exception1 to Section 499 cannot be taken.
In Chamanlal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1372 case, the Court observed that in order to come within the First Exception to Section 499, it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning the person being defamed is true and the publication of the imputation is for the public good. The onus of proving these two ingredients was on the offender but in this case, the offender totally failed to establish these pleas. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the imputation concerning the person being defamed was not true but was motivated by the animus of the appellant against the person being defamed. The Court observed that when a person makes a comment on the character of a public servant and it is for the public good, then no action lies against him provided that the comments are made honestly and without wilful misrepresentation. The petition was rejected.
Conclusion:
According to Section 499, “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.”. Thus the defamation involves harming the reputation of a person by making and publishing words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations. There are ten exceptions to this definition of criminal defamation. According to the first exception to the definition, when a person makes a comment on the character of a public servant is for the public good, then no action lies against him provided that the comments are made honestly and without wilful misrepresentation. Thus to take defence of exception 1 to Section 499, the accused has to show that his comment on the character of a public servant is for the public good and he has made it honestly and without wilful misrepresentation.