Q: What are defamation as a tort and defamation as a crime ?

Ans: 
1. Defamation as a tort is a civil wrong whereas Defamation as a crime is a criminal offence which is bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable.

2. Defamation as a tort is based on tort law and it is such area of law which has no statutes to define wrongs. Defamation as a tort relies completely on case laws to define wrongs.  

Defamation as a crime has been defined as an offence under Section 499 of IPC and the punishment for the same is mentioned in Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


3. Defamation as a tort furnishes redressal or solution to the plaintiff by awarding damages to the plaintiff in the form of monetary compensation and is given by an accused.

The purpose of legal action against defamation as a crime is not monetary compensation and in criminal defamation,  the objective is to punish the offender and send a message to the society not to commit such an offence. In Section 500 of IPC , the punishment for defamation is imprisonment upto two years or fine or both. So, if fine is imposed under Section 500 of IPC, it is a punishment for offender and not a monetary compensation of defamation as a defamation of tort.

4. Since there is no statutory provisions of defamation as a tort, the damages are awarded in defamation as a tort on the basis of probabilities and it depends on the evaluation and discretion of court.

The compensatory damages awarded to plaintiffs are designed to give justice to them after being wronged by recovering the expenses made by the plaintiff. 

Punitive damages are designed to prevent others from being hurt by the same or similar actions and thus any inclusion of compensation of loss due to pain or suffering is pecuniary damage.

In defamation as a crime, the offence of defamation is not based on case laws and there is a statutory provision of punishment of defamation as a crime. Generally if the defamation is established beyond a reasonable doubt, the defamation is considered as crime, for instance: libel whereas in defamation as a tort defamation is not sure and needs to be proved by case laws, for instance: slander.

5. Defamation as a tort is a civil offence and thus it is generally a slow process to seek relief in India.

The defamation as a crime  is a speedy process because a plaintiff can move to criminal court and can ask the court to take cognizance of his complaint. Criminal offence has a speedy process for the resolution.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: What are the differences between tresspass and nuisance?

Ans: Trespass,  is the direct physical interference with the plaintiff’s possession of the property through some material or tangible object whereas, in the case of a nuisance, it is an injury to some right of the possession of the property but not the possession itself. Trespass is actionable per se (actions which do not require allegations or proof), whereas, in the case of a nuisance, only the proof of actual damage to the property is required and is per se actionable.  Simply entering on another individual’s property without the owner’s consent and without causing him any injury would be trespass whereas if there is an injury to the property of another or any interference with his enjoyment of the property, then it will amount to a nuisance. It is to be noted that if the interference with the use of the property is direct, then the wrong is trespass whereas if the interference with the use or enjoyment of the property is consequential then it will amount to a nuisance. Exa...
Read more