Opinion or Defamation ?
Oct. 26, 2024 • Nandini Kumari
Student's Pen
S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr on 28 April 2010
In September 2005, India Today surveyed the sexual habits of people from big cities in India. One of the issues discussed as a part of this survey was the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex. As a part of the survey, the magazine published the views of different people from different segments of society. Out of several one of them was the appellant, S. Khushboo, a well-known actress from south India. The appellant expressed her opinion on the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex due to the simultaneously increasing number of live-in relationships and addressed the societal acceptance of the same. She also expressed her concern for women’s reproductive safety and the use of contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs.
"According to me, sex is not only concerned with the body; but also concerned with the conscious. I could not understand matters such as changing boyfriends every week. When a girl is committed to her boyfriend, she can tell her parents and go out with him. When their daughter has a serious relationship, the parents should allow it. Our society should come out of the thinking that at the time of the marriage, the girls should be with virginity.
None of the educated men will expect that the girl whom they are marrying should be with virginity. But when having sexual relationships the girls should protect themselves from conceiving and getting venereal diseases."
As many as 23 complaints were filed against S. Khushboo, for her statement in the interview. The actress's offence was enlisted under sections 499, 500, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The offences also got under sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. She faced many complaints about her statement in the interview with a leading news magazine.
The appellant had approached the high court of Madras, praying the quashing of these proceedings through exercising its inherent power under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.
The respondent quoted her lines from the interview suggesting that her lines were directed to women in her industry and their involvement in pre-marital sex which created a huge mental harassment to the women, especially in Tamil Nadu. In the case, a male advocate complained that someone made disrespectful remarks about the need for women to maintain their virginity or chastity. The advocate said these remarks were an insult to the dignity of Tamil women and had a bad influence on the culture and morality of the people of the State. He claimed that these remarks could encourage people to commit crimes and that the person who made the remarks should be punished under certain sections of the law.
In a similar case, a female advocate with over 10 years of experience practising in the Trichy District Courts, quoted parts of statements published in 'India Today' and 'Dhina Thanthi' to support that the person's actions were punishable under certain sections of the law.
The Madras High Court, after several proceedings, concluded that the arguments and statements made by the appellant, the actress, were merely her opinion. It determined that her comments did not target any specific group in society in an attempt to defame women who choose to be in a live-in relationship. The Madras High Court judgement said that there was not any prima facie case for any of the statutory offences alleged there all the criminal charges were as a result of this quashed.
What is defamation?
According to Merriam-Webster, defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure that person's reputation: the act of defaming another.
Defamation is defined in section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 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 in the future excepted, to defame that person.
Defamation is generally the harm to the reputation of a person through words or speech that directly or indirectly mentions the victim. The Constitution of India under part three provides the fundamental right to speech. Article 19 of the Constitution grants the right to speech but with certain limitations, that do not harm the right to live peacefully of others. Contempt of court and defamation through incitement are not allowed under the right to freedom of speech.
Types of defamation
There are two types of defamation recognized by law:
- Slander: This refers to defaming someone through spoken words or speech. Proving defamation in cases of slander can be quite challenging because there may not always be recorded evidence, and the statements made can be easily manipulated.
- Libel: This involves defamation through written words. For a written statement to be considered libellous, it must target and defame a specific individual or group.
For a statement to qualify as defamation, it must be specific to the individual being targeted, rather than a general remark.
Definition or opinion?
For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must be shown that the speaker had a malicious motive. If the statement was expressed in good faith or as a personal opinion, it cannot be classified as defamation.
In the case mentioned, the appellant shared her opinion about having multiple sexual partners and suggested that the concept of living together should be accepted in society. She also raised concerns about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases associated with having multiple partners. However, her comments were misunderstood, and some women in her industry took offence. The Madras High Court clarified that her statements were made in good faith and were opinionated rather than defamatory. Defamation and generalised statement
Recent Case
Rahul Gandhi, a political leader, was summoned to court over a statement he made at a political rally directed at his political rival. In his speech, he made a general comparison between the surnames of notorious individuals associated with fraud in the Indian economy, who are widely recognized as scammers. However, a lesser-known political leader who shares the same surname filed a defamation case against him, even though his name was not mentioned in the speech. It was believed that the complainant had political motives and aimed to have Rahul Gandhi disqualified from parliament.
Rahul Gandhi argued that his remarks were aimed at addressing the increasing corruption in the country and were not intended to target any specific community. On July 7, 2023, the Gujarat High Court declined to stay the conviction. Justice Hemant P. Prachchhak, in a 125-page judgment, stated that Mr Gandhi had violated 'modesty' and that his actions reflected 'moral turpitude.' The judge also referred to Mr Gandhi as a 'habitual offender,' citing several ongoing defamation cases against him.
However, Rahul Gandhi's parliamentary seat has not been vacated.
Conclusion
Defamation is not absolute; it can be manipulated and used against someone by twisting the words of the speaker. This is where the crucial role of legal professionals comes into play, as they must carefully interpret statements and investigate the intent or real motive behind them. The law can be misused, as seen in recent examples, but it is the responsibility of legal interpreters to analyze the law and understand the true meaning behind expressions. The article suggests that with freedom comes great responsibility.
References
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-modi-defamation-case-against-rahul-gandhi-the-story-so-far/