Online Defamation And Liability
🔹 What is Online Defamation?
Online Defamation (also known as cyber defamation) refers to publishing false or defamatory content on digital platforms like:
Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.)
Blogs and forums
News websites
WhatsApp or Telegram messages
Emails and newsletters
YouTube videos or podcasts
Such content must be published with intent to harm reputation.
🔹 Key Elements of Defamation
False statement
Publication (to a third party)
Intent to harm reputation
Damage to reputation
🔹 Types of Defamation in India
| Type | Medium |
|---|---|
| Libel | Written or published defamatory content (e.g., posts, articles) |
| Slander | Spoken defamatory words (less common online) |
🔹 Legal Provisions Applicable
| Law | Relevant Sections |
|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 499 – Definition of defamation Section 500 – Punishment (up to 2 years + fine) |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Section 66A (struck down) Section 69A – Blocking content Section 79 – Intermediary liability |
| Civil Law | Damages can be claimed via a civil suit for defamation |
| Constitution | Article 19(2) – Reasonable restrictions on free speech including defamation |
🧩 Key Legal Concepts
Online content is “publication” for the purpose of defamation.
Intent and harm must be proved.
Social media users, bloggers, and influencers can be held personally liable.
Intermediaries (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) may not be liable if they act within due diligence under Section 79 IT Act.
📚 Detailed Case Laws on Online Defamation in India
1. ✔️ Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the criminal defamation law as unconstitutional, claiming it restricts free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
Said that reputation is part of Article 21 (Right to Life) and must be protected.
Defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2).
Importance:
Confirmed that online defamation can be criminally prosecuted.
Established that free speech online is not absolute.
2. ✔️ Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2021, Bombay HC)
Facts:
Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra posted allegedly derogatory tweets against the judiciary.
Held:
The High Court noted that while satire and criticism are part of free speech, excessive or malicious statements can attract criminal and civil defamation.
However, in this case, no coercive steps were taken.
Importance:
Reiterated that social media is not beyond the reach of defamation laws.
Also noted that intent and context are crucial in evaluating online speech.
3. ✔️ S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Actress Khushboo made public statements about premarital sex, and multiple defamation complaints were filed.
Held:
SC quashed the complaints, stating that mere expression of controversial opinion does not amount to defamation.
The threshold for defamation is high – must show damage and malice.
Importance:
Important for freedom of speech online, especially for influencers and public figures.
Clarified not all offensive content is defamatory.
4. ✔️ Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011, Delhi HC)
Facts:
Greenpeace published an online game criticizing Tata’s environmental practices.
Held:
Court held that freedom of speech includes satire and criticism, but malicious falsehoods or defamatory content are actionable.
The case was resolved with Greenpeace giving a disclaimer.
Importance:
Landmark case on corporate defamation via online platforms.
Balanced environmental activism with corporate reputation rights.
5. ✔️ S. Ve. Shekher v. The State (2018, Madras HC)
Facts:
Actor-politician forwarded a derogatory Facebook post about women journalists.
Held:
High Court refused to quash FIR, stating that forwarding a defamatory post equals endorsement, if intent can be inferred.
The accused was liable for online defamation and hurting sentiments.
Importance:
Established that forwarding/sharing defamatory content is not immune from liability.
Very relevant for WhatsApp and Facebook users.
6. ✔️ Basant Raj v. State of Karnataka (2020, Karnataka HC)
Facts:
Defamatory allegations made via Facebook posts by a local businessman against another.
Held:
Court ruled that online publication to a large audience multiplies the harm, and makes the offence graver.
Reiterated that defamation can be prosecuted even if the platform is private (e.g., Facebook groups).
Importance:
Demonstrates that private online spaces are still public enough for defamation law to apply.
7. ✔️ Rajiv Dahiya v. State of Rajasthan (2017)
Facts:
An online article accused a journalist of unethical behavior without proof.
Held:
Court held that unverified allegations online, especially against professionals, amount to defamation and professional injury.
Importance:
Relevant for online journalism, blogs, and forums.
🧩 Who Can Be Held Liable for Online Defamation?
| Person/Entity | Liability |
|---|---|
| Original author/poster | Primarily liable if intent to defame is proven |
| Person sharing/retweeting | May be liable if intent or endorsement is clear |
| Platform (e.g., Twitter) | Protected under Section 79 IT Act if due diligence is followed |
| Admins of groups/pages | May be liable if actively moderating/controlling content |
| Blog owners/editors | Liable for false or malicious posts hosted by them |
✅ Conclusion
Online defamation is a growing concern in the digital era where content can spread rapidly.
Indian courts recognize civil and criminal liability for defamatory statements made online.
Freedom of speech is protected, but not when it unjustifiably harms someone’s reputation.
Intent, context, and harm caused are crucial factors in determining liability.
Both individuals and organizations must exercise caution in their online communications.
RELATED Blog
0 comments