D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata

Facts

Manjulata, about 17, from a distinguished educated family of Jodhpur and a B.A. student, was the subject of a false news item in the local daily Dainik Navjyoti (18.12.77) stating she had run away with a boy named Kamlesh after leaving home on the pretext of attending night classes. The item was untrue and published negligently with utter irresponsibility, causing her to be ridiculed and harming her marriage prospects.

Issues

• Whether the publication was defamatory
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to general damages without proving special damage

Arguments

The plaintiff contended the false news lowered her reputation, exposed her to ridicule and damaged her marriage prospects, entitling her to damages. The defendants contended there was no intention to defame and questioned liability for the published item.

Held

The court held that the news item was defamatory as it lowered the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and exposed her to ridicule. It affirmed that in India all defamatory words are actionable per se, so general damages are presumed without proof of special damage. Lack of intention to defame was no defence where the publication was in fact defamatory and made negligently. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 10,000 by way of general damages.

Ratio decidendi

In Indian tort law defamatory statements are actionable per se and general damages are presumed; the defendant's lack of intention to defame is immaterial where the statement is in fact defamatory.

Significance

A leading Indian decision settling that the English libel/slander distinction is not followed for actionability in India and that defamation is actionable per se with presumed damages; routinely cited on the essentials of defamation and damages.

Related