Difference Between Civil and Criminal Defamation
1. Definition
Defamation generally means harming a person’s reputation by making false statements.
Civil Defamation
Civil defamation is a private wrong (tort).
It occurs when one person injures another’s reputation, and the injured party seeks compensation (damages).
The primary aim: to restore reputation or compensate for harm.
The affected person (plaintiff) sues the person who made the defamatory statement (defendant).
Criminal Defamation
Criminal defamation is a public wrong (offense against society).
It involves a person making defamatory statements that harm public order or a community’s peace.
The state prosecutes the offender, aiming to punish.
The goal: to deter people from defaming others in society.
2. Parties Involved
| Aspect | Civil Defamation | Criminal Defamation |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff/Complainant | The defamed individual (private) | The State (public prosecutor) |
| Defendant | The person who made defamatory statement | Same person, but prosecuted by state |
3. Nature of Proceedings
Civil Defamation:
Lawsuit initiated by the injured party.
Burden of proof: on the plaintiff to prove defamation.
Outcome: usually damages (monetary compensation).
Criminal Defamation:
Prosecution initiated by the state.
Burden of proof: beyond reasonable doubt.
Outcome: punishment such as fines, imprisonment.
4. Standard of Proof
Civil: Proof on balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
Criminal: Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Defenses Available
Both may have similar defenses, such as:
Truth (if statement is true, no defamation).
Privilege (statements made in good faith in certain situations like in court).
Fair comment/opinion.
6. Examples / Case Law
Civil Defamation Case:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Although an American case, it illustrates civil defamation principles.
The Supreme Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove "actual malice" — the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth.
This shows the protection of free speech in civil defamation suits.
Criminal Defamation Case:
R. v. Zundel (1992) — Canadian case involving criminal defamation.
The accused published false statements that incited hatred.
The court held the statements criminal because they harmed social harmony.
In India, for example, K.K. Verma v. Union of India illustrates where criminal defamation laws were scrutinized on grounds of free speech.
Summary Table
| Feature | Civil Defamation | Criminal Defamation |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Private wrong (Tort) | Public wrong (Crime) |
| Initiator | Aggrieved individual | State (Prosecutor) |
| Objective | Compensation/damages | Punishment/deterrence |
| Standard of proof | Balance of probabilities | Beyond reasonable doubt |
| Outcome | Monetary damages | Fine or imprisonment |
| Purpose | Restore reputation | Maintain public order |
| Defenses | Truth, Privilege, Fair Comment | Same defenses but stricter proof required |
Conclusion
Civil defamation remedies reputation damage by monetary compensation.
Criminal defamation punishes defamatory acts harmful to society.
The distinction lies in who initiates the case, the purpose of proceedings, and the burden of proof.
RELATED Blog
0 comments