Facts of the Case
- A is the owner/editor of a newspaper.
- He published certain news about a VIP (Very Important Person).
- The same news item had originally been published earlier in another publication.
- The VIP claims that the news is defamatory and initiates criminal proceedings for defamation under Section 499 IPC.
- A pleads that he is not the original author and merely republished what was already in the public domain.
- Issue arises whether republication of an already-published defamatory news creates liability.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A is liable for defamation under Sections 499 & 500 IPC for republishing news already published elsewhere?
- Whether the defence of “publication already in existence” can absolve A from liability?
- Whether any exceptions under Section 499 IPC apply (public good, good faith, fair reporting, etc.)?
Legal Principles & Supportive Case Law
A. Defamation under Section 499 IPC
To constitute defamation:
- There must be an imputation concerning a person;
- Such imputation must be published;
- The intention must be to harm reputation, or knowledge that it will harm reputation.
Each publication – including republication – is considered a fresh offence.
B. Republication Constitutes Fresh Defamation
Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed that:
- Repeating or republishing defamatory matter is equivalent to publishing anew.
- Even quoting previously published defamatory content does not absolve liability.
Important Case Law:
- Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia (1981)
Supreme Court held:
“Repetition of a defamatory statement is as much defamation as the original publication.” - Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad (1958)
Court held that even forwarding defamatory content creates liability as fresh publication.
C. Exceptions under Section 499 IPC
A may attempt to claim:
- Exception 1 – Truth for Public Good
- Exception 3 – Fair Comment
- Exception 4 – Publication of Court Proceedings
- Exception 9 – Imputation made in Good Faith for public interest
However, these require:
- Good faith,
- Due care,
- Verification,
- Public good,
- Not merely copying content from another newspaper.
If A did not independently verify the truth or necessity, he cannot claim these exceptions.
D. Burden of Proof (Section 105 Evidence Act)
- When claiming an exception under Section 499, the burden lies on the accused to prove good faith and public good.
Possible Judgement
Likely Conclusion:
- A is liable for defamation because republication constitutes a fresh act of defamation.
- Merely stating that the news was already published earlier is not a valid defence under Section 499 IPC.
Reasoning:
- Defamation law punishes every independent act of publication.
- A’s newspaper created new circulation, causing fresh harm to the VIP’s reputation.
- A failed to establish good faith or public good just by copying earlier content.
- Hence, the court would hold A guilty under Section 500 IPC unless he proves a valid exception.
Probable Judicial Outcome:
- A is likely to be held liable for defamation.
- The court may impose punishment under Section 500 IPC (simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both).
- If A proves good faith and public interest, he may be acquitted, but burden lies heavily on him.
About lawgnan
To deeply understand important criminal law topics like defamation, republication liability, exceptions under Section 499 IPC, and landmark case law such as Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, visit Lawgana.in. The platform provides structured legal notes, simplified case briefs, judiciary-oriented explanations, and exam-friendly content for law students and aspirants. Whether preparing for LL.B., LL.M., UPSC Law Optional, or judicial services, Lawgana.in offers clear, reliable, and well-researched material to strengthen your legal concepts. Enhance your analytical writing and legal reasoning skills by exploring expert-crafted resources. Visit Lawgana.in today for high-quality legal learning.
