D.P.

CHOUDHARY AND
ORS. V. KUMARI
MANJULATA
FACTS OF THE CASE-
 Kumari Manjulata is the daughter of Mohan Singh. She was aged about 17 years and was living
with her parents and brother.
 They are all educated and were regarded very high because of it.
 Durga Prasad was the principal Editor of Dainik Navjyoti and the Managing Editor and
Publisher of the same worked under him.
 They are, responsible for publication of false and defamatory news in the daily newspaper.
 On 18-12-77, Dainik Navjyoti published a news regarding Manjulata with unfair comments
and false imputations. 
 There was a publication of a news item in a local daily Dainik Navjyoti that last night she ran
away with a boy named Kamlesh; but she had gone to attend night classes. 
 The news item was basically untrue and was published negligently with utter irresponsibility
and maliciously which created hatred against Manjulata and she was ridiculed.
 The news item was published in order to dishonour Manjulata and her family members. By
publication of this news item Manjulata was defamed.
 It created problems for arranging for her marriage. She was shocked and was ridiculed by
persons who knew her.
 She suffered from inferiority complex because of the publication of this news. Parents of
Manjulata also suffered disrespect in the society as the news item was defamatory.  
 A notice was given to the Editor but was unheeded. A sum of Rs. 10,100/- was claimed as
damages along with 12% interest.
 The Newspaper authorities submitted their written statement alleging that they do not know
the plaintiff personally and the news was collected by its reporter. The news item was correct
and was collected from a reliable source.
 There was no intention to defame of harass the plaintiff. Notice was denied.
 It was further averred in the written statement that at the time of presentation of the suit,
Manjulata was major. She did not exercise her option; therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
 The appellant submitted that the news item is based on correct facts and it is not false.
 He submitted that the correspondent who is himself an advocate had not only received the
information from the police station but had verified from the mother of the plaintiff.
 He submitted that there was no mala fide on the part of the newspaper or the correspondent.
 He sent the report to the newspaper with the intention that in case the persons knowing
Manjulata would read the news, they would send her back to her parents.
 From the evidence on record it is proved that the news was not verified from the mother of
Manjulata as was alleged by him.
 Also, he was never asked by anyone of the family members of Manjulata to do so.
 The law as regards defamation is that if defamatory words are published, they are presumed
to be false and the burden to prove that they are not so is upon the defendant.
 So from the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant it is not so proved.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
1. Is the tort of defamation committed in the aforesaid case?
2. Whether the Defendant is liable for the tort of defamation?
3. Whether intention is necessary element of Defamation?
PARTIES TO THE CASE-
 Durga Prasad appellant was the principal Editor of Dainik Navjyoti
 Appellant No. 2 Deen Bahdhu Choudhary was the Managing Editor
 Appellant No. 3 was the Printer and Publisher of Dainik Navjyoti.
 They are, responsible for publication of false and defamatory hews in the daily newspaper.
What is defamation?
 Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person.
 Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's
reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces
disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person, is called
defamation.
 One essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something
defamatory about the plaintiff. A communication may be considered defamatory "if it tends so
to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to
deter third persons from associating with him
Essentials of Defamation –
 The statement must be published
 The statement must be false
 The statement must refer to the plaintiff
 Defamation must be published.
 Injury to the plaintiff’s reputation must be done
JUDGEMENT-
 Earlier in this case, the Additional District Judge he decreed the suit of defamation awarding
Rs. 10,000/- as damages to the respondent.
 The following judgment is the result of a civil appeal against the Additional District judge’s
decree.
  From the statements of Manjulata, her mother and other witnesses it was borne out that the
news item published in the newspaper was false. Manjulata was cross-examined at length and
an attempt had been made to suggest in the cross-examination that the news item did not relate
to her but during the arguments no such attempt was made before the High Court Judge or
before the lower Court.
 The news was definitely related to Manjulata, plaintiff respondent.
 Learned counsel for the appellant rightly did not touch this point.  If a false news item is
published in a Newspaper, whosoever reads it he has his own reservations about person about
whom a false report is published.
 The object of law of defamation is to protect an individual’s interest in his reputation.
 It is no defence in a suit for defamation that the defendant did not intend to injure the
plaintiffs reputation, if, in fact, it has been injured. Even if the defendant bonafidely believed
in the truth of the words published, he will still be liable unless the defence of privilege is
raised.
 It is proved from the evidence of Manjulata and her witnesses that her reputation has lowered
down, marriage proposals were dropped, she underwent mental tensions and her character was
assassinated.
 The evidence led by plaintiff and her witnesses was sufficient to lower down the prestige of
Manjulata. It has been stated on behalf of the appellant that there was no malice against the
plaintiff respondent.
 Needless to say that in such cases a man may be liable although he had not a particle of
malice against the person defamed. The intention or motive with which the words were
employed is, as a rule, immaterial.
 The court below was right in deciding the case in favour of Manjulata. The appeal was
dismissed.
 It can very well be said that if a false news item is published in a newspaper, whosoever reads
it he has his own reservations about person about whom a false report is published.
 The object of law of defamation is to protect an individual's interest in his reputation. It is no
defence in a suit for defamation that the defendant did not intend to injure the plaintiffs
reputation, if, in fact, it has been injured.
 Even if the defendant bonafidely believed in the truth of the words published, he will still be
liable unless the defence of privilege is raised. 
DEFENCE OF PRIVILEGE-
When a publisher claims privilege in the publishing of material that another believes is
defamatory, there can be no recovery. Privilege is a complete defense for the publisher.
 Privilege may be obtained through consent of the person who may be defamed by the material.
However, there also are privileges created by law, which are based on a policy that holds that
good resulting from allowing publishing of potentially defamatory material outweighs harm that
may result.
These are absolute privileges and qualified privileges.
Absolute privilege, also called immunity, is granted to a person because his position or status
requires that he be able to act in that position without fear of civil action.
 Qualified privilege occurs when a particular situation demands that a person be able to freely
give information that could be untrue and defamatory.