The term ‘Cyber Defamation’ basically means publishing of false statement about an individual in cyberspace that can injure or demean the reputation of that individual. In India, defamation can be contemplated as both civil and criminal offence, and thus legal remedies are provided to the victims by the Indian judiciary system.Defamation can be understood as the wrongful and intentional publication of something either in the written or oral form about a person to harm his reputation in the society. For a statement to be considered as defamatory, the following essential elements must be fulfilled.

There must be the publication of the defamatory statement, which means coming to the knowledge of a third party.
The statement must refer only to the plaintiff
The statement must be defamatory in nature.

The widely used social media brought a revolution not only in the Indian sphere but also all across the world. The remarkable growth of the Internet has provided people with a platform to express their opinions, thoughts, and feelings through various forms of publications. Nonetheless, the ease of accessibility and publication in this online world has created several risks as these digital platforms are prone to be exploited by unscrupulous Internet users in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Thus this has led to numerous cases of “Cyber Defamation”.

Cyber defamation is a new concept but the traditional definition of defamation is injury caused to the reputation of a person in the eyes of a third person, and this injury can be done by verbal or written communication or through signs and visible representations. The statement must refer to the plaintiff, and the intention must be to lower the reputation of the person against whom the statement has been made. On the other hand, Cyber defamation involves defaming a person through a new and far more effective method such as the use of modern Electronic devices. It refers to the publishing of defamatory material against any person in cyberspace or with the help of computers or the Internet. If a person publishes any kind of defamatory statement against any other person on a website or sends E-mails containing defamatory material to that person to whom the statement has been made would tantamount to Cyber defamation.

In May 2000, at the height of the dot-com boom, India enacted the IT Act and became part of a select group of countries to have put in place cyber laws. In all these years, despite the growing crime rate in the cyber world, only less than 25 cases have been registered under the IT Act 2000 and no final verdict has been passed in any of these cases as they are now pending with various courts in the country.Although the law came into operation on October 17, 2000, it still has an element of mystery around it. Not only from the perception of the common man, but also from the perception of lawyers, law enforcing agencies and even the judiciary.The prime reason for this is the fact that the IT Act is a set of technical laws. Another major hurdle is the reluctance on the part of companies to report the instances of cyber crimes, as they don’t want to get negative publicity or worse get entangled in legal proceedings. A major hurdle in cracking down on the perpetrators of cyber crimes such as hacking is the fact that most of them are not in India. The IT Act does give extra-territorial jurisdiction to law enforcement agencies, but such powers are largely inefficient. This is because India does not have reciprocity and extradition treaties with a large number of countries.

What India needs to do in this backdrop, is to be a part of the international momentum against cyber crimes. The only international treaty on this subject is the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cyber Crime, formulated primarily by the European Union. By signing this treaty, member countries agree on a common platform for exchange of information relating to investigation, prosecution and the strategy against cyber crime, including exchange of cyber criminals. At the last count, there are 43 member countries, including the US and South Africa. India is not yet a part of this group and being a member would go a long way in addressing this issue of cross-border cyber terrorism.

The Indian IT Act also needs to evolve with the rapidly changing technology environment that breeds new forms of crimes and criminals. We are now beginning to see new categories and varieties of cyber crimes, which have not been addressed in the IT Act. This includes cyber stalking, cyber nuisance, cyber harassment, cyber defamation and the like. Though Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for punishment to whoever transmits or publishes or causes to be published or transmitted, any material which is obscene in electronic form with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees on first convection and in the event of second may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, it does not expressly talk of cyber defamation. The above provision chiefly aim at curbing the increasing number of child pornography cases and does not encompass other crimes which could have been expressly brought within its ambit such as cyber defamation.

IPC on Defamation:

Chapter XXI of the IPC exclusively talks of defamation. Section 499 prescribes the offence:

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 . . . to defame that person.

Explanation 2. – It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.Section 500 prescribes the punishment in such cases:

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Employer’s liability

A company can be held liable for the conduct of its employees. If an employee, during working hours, e-mails a defamatory remark about a competitor company to a colleague, the firm could be held liable for defamation even if the employee’s actions were not authorised or expressly prohibited.

For instance, in a dispute, which arose in the United Kingdom between the Western Provident Association (WPA) and Norwich Union, it was suggested that Norwich Union staff were spreading e-mail rumours amongst their sales force that WPA was more or less insolvent and under investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry. WPA sued Norwich Union, alleging that the latter was responsible for the communications made by its employees, even though the allegations were made without the instructions or knowledge of the management. The case was settled out of court but it is believed that Norwich Union paid approximately half a million pounds to WPA in settlement.

In fact, Asia’s first case of cyber defamation has been filed in India in the case of SMC Numatics Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra. Defamatory emails were allegedly sent to the top management of SMC Numatics by the defendant, who has since been restrained by the Delhi High Court from sending any form of communication to the plaintiff. This order of Delhi High Court assumes tremendous significance as this is for the first time that an Indian Court assumes jurisdiction in a matter concerning cyber defamation and grants an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from defaming the plaintiffs by sending derogatory, defamatory, abusive and obscene emails either to the plaintiffs or their subsidiaries.

An important test in determining whether a company can be held responsible for its employees’ actions is to decide whether the actions were to the benefit of the company. An employer would be held vicariously liable in case of an employee promoting his own interests.

The Australian judgment could impact freedom of speech of media organisations and expose publishers to legal actions all over the world. The judgment has raised complex global issues regarding internet publications, which could develop over time. The principle enunciated by the Australian Apex court is likely to stand in conflict with emerging jurisprudence relating to jurisdiction. Such an approach is likely to undermine the global nature of the internet, because it could make online publishers cautious and may deny access of their web sites to readers in countries where they fear litigation. This judgment will certainly have an impact on the Indian web publishing industry. It could open up the ground of misuse of law as Indian web publishers would be amenable to defamation laws not only in India but outside.

Further, the offence of defamation as defined in the IPC when extended to cyberspace may not achieve desired results. However, the Australian Judgment can be cited as a precedent and that will have persuasive value in India. Hence if defamatory material is downloaded by someone in India, that will be enough cause for action even if the servers of such site are located outside India.

there are some examples to simplify it

1) A person y wrote in his blog that a person x hit his wife . If this statement is not true (remember, truth is one of the absolute defense of defamation), it is defamatory. There is no way that this statement, if false, is not defamatory.

2) if a person y wrote wrong details about someone else like someone is fired because of xyz reason which that person y know is false in all sense is also can be defamatory

3) I think that person x hit his wife.” Statements of opinion are not statements of fact, and so theoretically are protected from libel suits. But is this really a statement of opinion? Sometimes statements of opinion really are viewed as statements of fact, depending on the circumstances. In this case, the average person may very well look at your statement as a statement of fact, depending on how well you know person x and his wife, and why you believe that he hit his wife. The bottom line: Just because you phrase something as a statement of opinion — “I think” or “I believe” — does not automatically protect you from a defamation claim.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge