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 publish anything
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

Answer: (A)

'D' would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him

According to section $499$ of the Indian Penal Code and Law of torts on Defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence, however, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant and he would be liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
In the present case, D would be liable, as he could not prove the facts published by him.