DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
A STUDY OF THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION

SUBJECT
CRIMINAL LAW -2

NAME OF THE FACULTY

PROF.(Dr) DURGA PRASAD INTURU

NAME OF THE STUDENT

MOHAMMED MINHAJ NAZEER
ROLL NO.:20LLB063
SEMESTER:4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Durga Prasad Inturu Mam for giving us an opportunity for deeply
studying about Interpretation of term defamation. This project is a result of dedicated effort.
It gives us immense pleasure to prepare this project report on Interpretation of term
defamation. I thank her for consultative help and constructive suggestion in this project. I
would also like to thank my family, siblings, my dear friends and all those who helped me in
this project in any way. Also, this project was instrumental in making me know more about
the Interpretation of term defamation. I would also like to thank DSNLU for providing all
necessary resources, thus helping me come up with a satisfactory project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERPRETATION OF DEFAMATION.........................................................................6

DEFAMATION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860..................................................7

MEANING..................................................................................................................................7
 DEFINITION..............................................................................................................7

 DEAD PERSONS OR GROUPS................................................................................7

 INNUENDO................................................................................................................8

 HARMING REPUTATION........................................................................................8

EXCEPTIONS............................................................................................................................8
 IMPUTATION FOR TRUTH FOR PUBLIC GOOD.................................................8

 PUBLIC CONDUCT OF SERVANTS.......................................................................9

 CONDUCT OF PERSON TOUCHING PUBLIC QUESTION.................................9

 PUBLICATION OF REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURTS........................9

 MERITS OF CASE DECIDED IN THE COURT......................................................9

PUNISHMENT.........................................................................................................................11

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS........................................................................................12

SUBRMANIAN SWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA....................................................................12

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA V. SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI.............................................15

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................17
INTRODUCTION: -
An individual in the society needs to protect his reputation, honor, dignity character as much
as he requires the right to enjoy property, personal liberty and a number of privileges.
Defamation is an injury to the reputation of that person. Defamation is both a crime as well as
a civil wrong. The law of civil defamation that is prevalent in English laws and other
common law nations, is also a part of Indian laws. Section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 includes the provision of defamation. It defines defamation as any person who by
speaking or by written words, signs or any king of visible gestures creates or try to publishes
any imputation on any other person with an intention to harm the reputation of the person
tries to commit the offence of defamation. Defamation is civil as well as a criminal wrong
and it is codified under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this research the
student researcher would explain the defamation under IPC and the important judgments
related to criminal defamation.

OBJECT OF THE STUDY: -

 To study about the term defamation under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 To study about the various important case laws regarding defamation.
 To study various case laws related to statutory crimes.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY: -

 The study is limited to the study of interpretation of term defamation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: -

 The study would help us to know about the term defamation under Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

LITERATURE REVIEW: -
 The Researcher has taken information from various Web sources, Books, Articles,
Journals.

BOOKS: - Criminal Law, by K.D. Gaur for understanding the concept of Defamation under
section 499 thoroughly.
WEB SOURCES: - Manupatra, SCC online for the case laws included in the case. For getting
the facts, issues and the judgment of the cases included in the project.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: -
 This is doctrinal research – descriptive and explanatory research. 

RESEARCH QUESTION: -
 What is the interpretation of term defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860?
 What are the important case laws related to defamation under Section 499 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860?
INTERPRETATION OF DEFAMATION
An individual in the society needs to protect his reputation, honor, dignity character as much
as he requires the right to enjoy property, personal liberty and a number of privileges.
Defamation is an injury to the reputation of that person. Defamation is both a crime as well as
a civil wrong. The word defamation is taken from a Latin word ‘diffamare’. Etymology of
this term means “spreading evil report about someone”. Therefore, defamation is nothing but
being liable for causing damage to the reputation of any other person and the question of
defamation is related to one’s reputation. Defamation as an offence is managed in section
4991 of the Indian Penal Code. The primary section of the section characterizes what is "
defamation”. In its significance, it is an activity making hurt the reputation of an individual,
by making an imputation. Two clarifications to the segment (the first and second) manage
defamation of an expired individual and defamation of a gathering of people, separately. The
third clarification to the section manages an imputation in the structure of another option, or
communicated unexpectedly. The significance of " harm to reputation" is managed in the
fourth clarification

Various definitions of defamation have been given in the past by various jurists and authors.
According to Salmond “the wrong of defamation lies in the publication of a false and
defamatory statement about another person without lawful justification”. Underhill defines
defamation as “a statement becomes defamation if it is made about another without just cause
or excuse, whereby he suffers injury to his reputation and not to his self-esteem”. Authors
such as Blackburn and George which were famous for defined defamation as “the tort of
publishing a statement which tends to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule or to
lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally”.

defamation is civil just as criminal wrong. Moreover, the classified criminal law regarding
the matter, While the former form is not classified the criminal law on the theme is contained
in Section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Nonetheless, defamation as a Civil
Wrong is covered under Law of Torts. It is simply in light of precedential turns of events, for
example through decisions articulated by Courts. Rules and standards of responsibility that
are applied by our courts are generally those acquired from common law.

1
Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
DEFAMATION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Provisions related to defamation are provided under section 499-502 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Section 499 defines the term defamation and also includes all the exceptions of
defamation. Section 500 provides for the punishment for the offence of defamation. As
defamation is a civil as well as a criminal offence2, He isn't forced to settle on a decision
between the two. In the event that he has documented a criminal case, he can in any case
record a civil suit for damages for defamation, despite the fact that the arrangement is as yet
forthcoming. Indeed, in the event that he stands by too long, the common activity may
become time-banned. Withdrawal of a criminal complaint on delicate of expression of
remorse is no bar to common activity for defamation except if there is a particular agreement
notwithstanding a civil action.

MEANING
 DEFINITION
Coming to the definition, “a person commits defamation when, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, he 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”—unless the case falls within
one of the exceptions laid down under section 499 of IPC. defamation is a statement having a
tendency to bring an individual into hatred, disparage or contempt. The component of
derides, however not mentioned in the fundamental passage of section 499, is managed in the
fourth explanation to the part.
 DEAD PERSONS OR GROUPS
If a person imputes anything about a person who is dead then it may amount to defamation in
the condition that it would harm the reputation of the person if alive and is done with the
intention to be hurtful to the emotions of his family and other close relatives. This is
imbedded in the first explanation laid down under section 499. In the second explanation of
the same section defamation also includes imputation to a company or a group or collection
of persons.
 INNUENDO
When a comment or statement is on the face looks innocent but it has some kind of secondary
meaning which is defamatory. This is innuendo which on the face does not look as
2
Asoke Kumar v. Radha Kanto. A.I.R. 1967 C al. 17* at 183, para 20
defamatory but its hidden meaning is defamatory. Explanation 3 under section 499 contains
this condition the comments which are innuendo is defamatory.
 HARMING REPUTATION
Harming reputation is explained in the 4th explanation of section 499. The imputation should
indirectly or directly according to the members of society-(a) lowers the intellectual or the
moral character of an individual or (ii) it lowers the character of that individual in relation to
his calling or caste, or (iii) lowers the credit of that individual or (iv) causes to believe that
the body of that person is in a disgraceful or loathsome state.

EXCEPTIONS
Section 499 of IPC lays down the exceptions to the persons to protect them from criminal
liability of defamation. Most of the exceptions require the concept of “Good Faith”. It is
defined under IPC that “Nothing is said to be done of believed in good faith which is done or
believed without due care and attention.” The code super imposes the concept of attention
and due care to that of the honest of purpose which means that the honest of purpose is
required. Good faith is an essential element for the people engaged in the Media Profession.
Another important related to the exceptions is that they are exhaustive and no exception taken
from English law or taken from any other kind of source might be engrafted 3. Besides the
exceptions specified under these sections’ attention must also be paid to the general
exceptions4. One of the same exceptions is laid down under section 94 which gives immunity
to a person from criminal liability when he is compelled to make a defamatory statement. The
student researcher in this part have given a brief explanation of the exceptions under section
499.

 IMPUTATION FOR TRUTH FOR PUBLIC GOOD

According to the exception, Imputation of a statement would not amount defamation if that
imputation which is made is true and if for the public good that the imputation gets published.
It is known as the defence of “justification”. This makes a difference between the civil and
criminal law, there is no essential element of public good is required just the truth of the
information is enough for defence.5 Only First and the fourth exception includes the element
of truth, all the other exceptions include the concept of good faith.
3
Satish v. Ram, A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 1
4
Section 76 to 106 of Indian penal Code, 1860.
5
Duncan & Neill, Defamation 55, para 11.03 (1978).
  PUBLIC CONDUCT OF SERVANTS
Expression of any opinion in good faith by a public servant in the conduct and discharge of
his duties or respecting his character as far as the character appears in the conduct. This
exception includes only assertion of opinion and not saying any fact. The comment made
should have some reality and not imaginary. When an individual tries to make the conduct of
a public servant to be the subject of the comment which is further for the public good and
when the concerned individual honestly believes.

 CONDUCT OF PERSON TOUCHING PUBLIC QUESTION

It is a little bit different from the 2nd exception, this exception includes a larger part of fair
comment by allowing expression of opinion related to conduct of a person “touching a public
question and respecting his character”. Good faith is an essential aspect of this exception. If
there is no improper or corrupt intention behind any comment by a newspaper is considered
fair.6 Also, it is not justified for a writer who repeats any statement which is highly
defamatory which are mere misstatement of facts.
 PUBLICATION OF REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURTS
The 4th exception states that if a true report is published of a proceeding of court then it would
not amount of defamation. The Section also includes the explanation according to which
within the meaning of the exception, “justice of the peace or any other officer undertaking
any inquiry in open court preliminary to a trial in a court of justice. With its judicial
development, it is held that it is not necessary that the report must be true word by word but a
substantially true account of proceedings is required. This exception does not require the
ingredient of good faith.
 MERITS OF CASE DECIDED IN THE COURT
The justice administration is a point of universal interest to the general public. The verdict of
the court, the conduct of witnesses or the party and the judgment, all are subject of “free
comment”. The only requirement that it should be made in good faith and fair in nature. A
person is required to speak a truth honestly and with the ingredient of good faith and best of
his ability and knowledge.
 MERITS OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE

6
Subroya Aiyar v. Kadar Rowiian AbduRgadar, A.I.R. 1914 Mad. 352, 353.
The aim behind this exception is that the public should be aided by comments when it is
passing any judgment of the public performance. It is not defamation to criticise any public
performance in good faith and in the form of fair comment. The section provides for an
illustration. That if a person comments “A’s book is foolish: A must be a week man” it is
allowed if said in good faith but if comment is “I am not surprised that A’s Book is foolish
and indecent for he is a weak man” This would amount to defamation.

 CENSURE PASSED BY A PERSON HAVING LAWFUL AUTHORTY

According to this exception, the person is allowed who have some other people under is
authority either by way of law or by his own consent in good faith, any censure on the
conduct of the person under authority. The illustration includes, a judge censuring the
conduct of witness, head of department to his junior workers, a teacher to students, a father to
son, a banker to cashier, all are within these exceptions.

 ACCUSATION PREFERRED TO AUTHORISED PERSON

This exception allows a person to prefer an accusation against an individual to any of the
lawful authorities over the concerned person related to the subject matter of accusation in
good faith. Important ingredients under this exception are lawful authority and good faith. In
one case7, A woman made some defamatory and wrong comments against a government
officer and after inquiry it was found that publication was done and wasn’t allowed neither 9 th
nor 2nd exception.
In case to establish a defence, it requires the accused would be needed to prove that the
person had the lawful authority.

 GOOD FAITH, PUBLIC GOOD, INDIVIDUAL INTEREST

9th exception states that the person to whom communication is made has a interest in the
protection of the person who makes the accusation. Other than the bona fide intention of the
imputation made by the person, the person to whom it is given must also have a interest
common with the person who makes the statement. Unlike the 1st exception there is no
requirement of truth under this exception. This exception refers to any imputation that is
given with good faith, different from the 1st exception where only true comments are allowed.

7
Jai Debt v. emperor, A.I.R. 1915 All. 162. 163.
PUNISHMENT
Punishment is laid down under section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 8. The accused person,
is liable to be sentenced to simple imprisonment for about 1 year. Section 501 lays down for
punishment ion cases of printing any defamatory matter. The person found to be printing
such material would be liable to be punished for simple imprisonment which might extend to
two years or fine can be imposed or in some case both can be imposed. Section 501 requires
two ingredients that the matter should be printed and the person printing must have a reason
to believe that particular matter is defamatory in nature9. And at last section 502 provides for
punishment in cases where a person sells or repeats the published matter which is defamatory
in nature the punishment is same simple imprisonment which can be extended to 2 years.

CYBER DEFAMATION
Due to the progress in development of technology, there have been a drastic change in the
society. Internet is one of the most important inventions in the field of technology. Internet
has become a very important part of our life. But there have been instances where these
platforms are misused by people. If used correctly it is really helpful but its use in improper
may lead to difficulties. As this platform can be used for disseminating information by the
help of social networking sites, it has led to misuse of this platform to transfer improper
information and publishing false statement. “Cyber Defamation” is a term which defines this
activity of sharing false information or imputing false statement about a person in cyberspace
that is made with an intention to harm the reputation of a person. It is a new concept but it has
it roots in the common defamation which is the injury caused to the reputation of a person in
the eyes of the right-thinking members of the society. It is similarly punished under section
500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It comes down under section 499 of IPC which defines
defamation. With the introduction of social media, a revolution has taken place. Due to the
development in technology and internet, social media is now on the fingertips of people. But
this has led to several risks due to these digital platforms are misused by people. One Similar
Situation arouse in the case of Shriya Singhal v. Union of India, which struck down section
66A of the IT act. This section had the provision for punishment for circulating offensive
messages through any electronic device such as mobile, computer.

8
Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
9
Section 501 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS
SUBRMANIAN SWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA10
FACTS
In the year 2014, Some allegations were made by Mr. Subramanian Swamy against Ms
Jayalalitha and due to which case for criminal defamation was filed against him and some
other leaders. Petitions were filed by Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Subramanian
swamy. Rahul Gandhi made a speech against Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) about
one of their members killing Mahatma Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal made allegations against
Nitin Gadhkari that he accepted bribe and is a corrupt politician was filed under article 32 of
the constitution for challenging the constitutional validity of the section 499 and the offence it
states which criminal defamation. Section 199(1) and (4) of CRPC as a kind of reasonable
restrictions on the right of freedom of speech and expression. In the Supreme court, A 2 judge
bench was constituted for this matter and for deciding the constitutional validity of section
499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether section 499 under IPC is violative of the Right to freedom of Speech and
Expression laid down under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
2. Whether sub sections (1) and (4) of section 199 of Cr PC is violative of right to
freedom of speech and expression under the constitution.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PETITIONERS: -
 Under IPC, Section 499 and 500 do not work as a “reasonable restriction” on freedom
of speech, due to the reason that even truth is not a defence. Even when a person
speaks truth, that person can be prosecuted.
 A restriction is not reasonable in nature if it goes beyond the interest of the public and
could be considered as arbitrary in nature. It could be used in the form of self-
censorship and can affect free speech.
 There is nothing specified under section 499 which is protective to the person who has
not even imputed any statement at all from being made liable under a defamation suit

10
(2016) 7 SCC 221
 only on the basic allegation made by the respondent of having conspired with
someone to defame him
 The section 499 is not narrow and its aim is not to restrict only what is required as it is
vague that why ironical comments are needed to be prohibited.
 The prerequisite of the charged demonstrating that the assertion made by him was for
public acceptable is ridiculous and outlandish on the grounds that the words "public
great" are very dubious.

 Crime is an offense against the general public where state is the overseer; slander of
any individual can't be treated as a "wrongdoing" as it doesn't support any open
interest.

 Slander of an individual is a common wrong, for which the custom-based law cure is
an activity or case for harms. The procedural arrangements Sec 199 of CrPC don't
finish the assessment of sensibility as visualized under Art 19(2) of the Constitution.

 The characterization under Sec 199(2) CrPC is impermissible as it gives an alternate

methodology to certain classification of people and Court of Session to be the Court
of first case, and along these lines makes two sorts of systems and impacts the
correspondence condition.

RESPONDENTS: -
 Reasonable restrictions could be imposed on the freedom of speech laid down under
article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
 Reputation is important and is implied under article 21 about right to life. “Reputation
of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech”
 Freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) is subject to restrictions under article 19(2)
in which defamation is a integral part as one of the grounds, and this term laid down
in the article include “criminal defamation”.
 The right under article 19(1)(a) does not extend to offend any person.
 Injury to a person’s reputation cannot be properly compensated in the form of
monetary punishment and for these purposes civil law is there where remedies can be
taken by obtaining a decree from civil court.
  provisions for the Protection of notoriety or the privilege against defamation are
accessible in both civil just as in the criminal law. Taking response to common law
can't be a ground to announce Sec 499 of IPC as unlawful. Cures under Civil law and
Criminal law for criticism contrast and subsequently don't disregard any of the
arrangements of the Constitution.
 The ten special cases give sensible protect to the arrangement thus it can't be said that
the arrangement experiences absence of direction and consequently dislike the
arrangements of Art 14 of the Constitution.
JUDGMENT
Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Dipak Mishra were the judges in this case who gave the
judgment. The court first interpreted the meaning of terms” defamation” and “reputation” and
their relation with Freedom of speech. The court found these terms as “clear and
unambiguous”. The court ordered that the term reputation is related to dignity and is a
significant part of it. Term dignity is essential part of article 21 right to life and personal
liberty.
The court while explaining emphasised on the importance of freedom of speech and
expression in a democratic country, but it also needs to be subjected to reasonable
restrictions. Such restrictions are for the public interest and laws through which restrictions
are imposed should not infringe the rights. The court laid importance on criminal defamation
and stated that law related to this matter is clear and explained the other cases when laws are
struck down violation free speech, as done in the cases of Shriya Singhal and Rangarajan.
The Court additionally emphasised the significance Constitutional brotherhood and central
obligation, under which each resident is relied upon to regard the pride of another. Taking
note of this as an established obligation, the Court held that it couldn't be inferred that the
presence of criminal criticism law is upsetting to the right to speak freely of discourse and
articulation. In addition, the Court tended to the issues raised in regards to the criminal
maligning arrangements violative of the idea of 'sensibility', either meaningfully or
procedurally, looking at whether it is dubious, or subjective or lopsided. Inspecting the
expressed arrangement on defamation (Section 499 and 500 of IPC, Section 199(1) and
199(4) of CrPC, the Court reasoned that these were neither dubious nor equivocal. An
attribution must be treated as abusive on the off chance that it either straightforwardly or by
implication, in the assessment of others, brings down an individual's character. Truth is a
safeguard just when a proclamation serves the public great.
 The court finally held that Sections 499 and 500 are not disproportionate. The
reasonableness of a provisions should be looked through the perspective of general public
and public interest and not from the perspective of a person whom restrictions are imposed.
Therefore, the judges found the laws related to criminal defamation to be valid and
proportionate. The court further renounced the argument that defamation is basically a
conception of majority meant to violate the right of speech as too broad a proposition to be
taken as a guiding rule to determine the valid reasonableness of a restriction.

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA V. SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI11

FACTS
The case started when “Karni Sena” an organization demolished equipment and sets of a
movie due to which the shooting of the film Padmavat was stopped. The movie was based on
a Maharani from Chittorgarh. When the movie was going to be released in the month of
November, these demolishes and protest increased and which resulted in damage to the
property and people. The only demand of the organization “karni Sena” was to stop the
release of the movie Padmavati as the maharani portrayed in the film is of significant
importance and the movie shows a Portrayal of the Maharani in a Poor Image of Rajput. Writ
petition was filed in the Apex court by the petition filed was dismissed after consulting the
Central Board of Film Certification and ordered to examine the movie and to grant a
certificate accordingly. Even after this decision protests continued. Due to this violence this
movie was stopped from releasing in the states Gujrat, Rajasthan and Haryana and Madhya
Pradesh and it was banned in these states. But the Supreme court ordered to withdraw these
bans in the states and ordered all other states to follow the same guidelines by not banning the
movie.
After this the appellant in the present case Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma approached the SC
through a PIL with the contention that the movie is deserved to be banned and no screening
of the movie should be done. The appellant filed that FIR should be registered against the
respondents for the offences under Section 7 of Cinematography Act, 1952 read with Section
499, 500, 295, 153A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ISSUES RAISED
Whether the respondents are punishable under section 7 of the cinematography act, 1952 w.r.t
Sections 499, 500, 295, 153 of Indian Penal Code?

11
(2018) 1 SCC 770
JUDGMENT
The Apex Court rejected the written petition seeking to ban the controversial movie
'Padmavati.' The three judges bench consisting of CJI Dipak Mishra, A.M Khanwilkar, and
D.Y Chandrachud considered it pre-judging to adjudicate this matter if the certification of the
controversial movie is still pending before the CBFC. It is a transparent violation of the rule
of law if public offices or persons holding a public post have to decide or comment upon this
matter before the competent authority. Prayer therefore has no basis. Subject to a judgement
by the competent authority or statutory authority, it was also pointed out that these PILs
cannot or may not be presented to the court for publicity or any other reason. The way PILs
can be misused is unfortunate.

In reply to the second contention the Court observed that the police have no role in this aspect
and the offences under the other foregoing articles, as far as Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC
are concerned, in addition to the aforementioned decisions, the Court also stated that "no
right shall be absolute in law but it is absolutely more reasonable for the right to freedom of
speech and expression as well as freedom of expression to be exercised." Furthermore, the
Court did not charge the appellant for abuse of the judicial process.
The soul of our Constitution, which means that this remedy is necessary to protect the
fundamental human rights in order to preserve harmony and the Supreme Court acts as
guardian of those rights, is the constitutional remedy provided under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. This remedy implies for such harmony to maintain among citizens, no religious
comment or visual representation may hurt their sentimental values in any way possible. We
live in a country of democracy and have the freedom to voice our views, imaginative or real,
but the freedom of speech and expression should not be exercised in any way to harm public
feeling.
CONCLUSION

Defamation is an injury to the reputation of that person. Defamation is both a crime as well as
a civil wrong. The law of civil defamation that is prevalent in English laws and other
common law nations, is also a part of Indian laws. Section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 includes the provision of defamation. It defines defamation as any person who by
speaking or by written words, signs or any king of visible gestures creates or try to publishes
any imputation on any other person with an intention to harm the reputation of the person
tries to commit the offence of defamation. “a person commits defamation when, by words
either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, he 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”. This project
includes two of the most controversial cases related to defamation where in the first case, the
petitioner was Mr Subramanian swamy and he filed a case to check the constitutionality of
the provision of criminal defamation laid down under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. On the other hand, in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma, the incidents that took place
were very controversial due to the demolition that was caused to the property as well as the
harm that was caused to some people. Defamation case was filed by Mr Manohar Lal Sharma
against the director of Padmavati.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 MANUPATRA
 SCC ONLINE
 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
 INDIAN PENAL CODE BY RATANLAL AND DHEERAJLAL
 CRIMINAL LAW CASES By K.D. GAUR