Question

PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.

FACTS: 'D', who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that 'P', who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'mischief monger'. 'P' brought a civil action against 'D', who could not prove the facts published by him.

Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• A. 'D' would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
• B. 'D' would not be liable, as such an action could curtail the right of expression and speech of press.
• C. 'D' would not be liable, as media could curtail the right of expression and speech of press.
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

The correct option is A 'D' would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.

A defamation as a tort is only a wrong if the defamation is of a nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. The term "defamation" is an all- encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. One of the essential elements for someone to successfully sue another for defamation is the requirement that the statement be false. If the statement is true, there is no liability and there can be no recovery. According to common law, the burden of proof relative to the truth or falsity of a statement is on the defendant.

In the above case D would be liable as he could not prove the facts published by him.