Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If, any statements are published or spoken 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, it is said that it is expected to defame that person.”
“No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions, and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army.”
“Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance”
The case revolves around a controversial speech made by the former MP comparing certain lawyers to street dogs at a time when there was strife between the lawyers and journalists in Kerala.
Supreme Court: In the case where BJP MLA Vijender Gupta was accused of posting defamatory tweets about Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish
Bombay High Court: In a matter wherein, a journalist sought to quash proceedings against him for publishing news items regarding the rift
Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., reiterated that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend a criminal complaint,
“…leaders of political parties should show their statesmanship and quality and healthy politics rather than accusing others by using vituperated language in political platform.”
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., quashed a complaint about defamation filed by a lawyer against Business Standard. It was held
“Sometimes the victim of sexual abuse herself does not understand what is happening to them or what is happening to them is wrong.”
Jharkhand High Court: Ananda Sen, J., while addressing the instant matter with regard to the application of Section 228A of Penal Code,
Kerala High Court: P. Somarajan, J., observed that, “…fourth estate is not expected to shy away from the matters governing public importance, but
Karnataka High Court: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J., while allowing the criminal revision in part, remarked that, if the accused seeks to take
Madras High Court: G.K. Ilathiraiyan, J., observed that, Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 cannot be attracted wherein an advocate acts professionally
Calcutta High Court: Debangsu Basak, J., while addressing a matter with regard to defamation, observed that “in a civil action for defamation, the
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. held that the continuation of criminal proceedings for the offence of defamation against an advocate who
“In this case, though in the sanction order it has been recorded ‘by order’ but from that word it cannot be inferred by