19 Jan 2024

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (19 Jan 2024)



One of Indian democracy’s treasured possessions is the freedom of speech, and it is considered to be an absolute sacrosanct. This is the reason why the constitutionality of laws in relation to criminal defamation has been questioned several times at the touchstone of freedom of speech. However, like other rights, even this right is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions as enumerated under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. This right can’t be put on a pedestal that would completely disregard the reputation of another and while protecting a person’s right, the rights of others can’t be jeopardized. If freedom of speech and expression is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, the right to reputation is also considered to be an inextricable part of the right to life protected by Article 21 and balancing these two rights is a constitutional necessity. The laws of defamation aim to create this balance by punishing those who, in the garb of free speech, have hurt the reputation of another but, at the same time protecting those who are communicating the truth or saying something in good faith. It is imperative to understand that the reputation of a person is earned over the years, and it cannot be tarnished by any other individual in a casual manner. The laws of criminal defamation have been codified under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and to fall within the confines of this Section, a person must have made an imputation about another person with either an intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom such an imputation is made. This imputation could be either by words, signs or visible representations and they could either be made or published. The difference between making of an imputation and publication of an imputation is that, while in the former, the communication of the imputation is only to the person concerned, whereas in the latter, the communication of the imputation is to a third party. The laws of criminal defamation are subject to ten exceptions, the first one being truth which the public good requires to be made or published.

Question1:- Mrs. Sullivan was married a month ago, when a newspaper published an article of her birthing twins. Mrs. Sullivan sued the newspaper company for defamation. Determine on the basis of the principle mentioned in the passage.
  • A. The newspaper company should have verified the facts before publishing the story.
  • B. The newspaper company should leave the personal affairs of Mrs. Sullivan alone.
  • C. The newspaper company should be held responsible to compensate for damages.
  • D. The newspaper company should be held liable for spreading true information.
Answer is C is correct. The aforementioned case fulfills all necessary requirements for constituting the offence of defamation; therefore the newspaper company shall be liable for compensation for damages to Mrs. Sullivan. Furthermore, the given facts are analogous to the case of Morrison v. Ritchie & Co. [1902] SLR 39 432 wherein the proprietor of the newspaper company was held liable to compensate for damages. Hence, the appropriate response is Option C.
Question2:- Ben sent a letter addressed to Luke, abusing him for the trouble he put Ben through. The letter is opened by Luke’s servant. The servant becomes aware of the contents of the letter. Determine whether Ben can be held liable for defaming Luke.
  • A. Ben is not liable for defaming Luke as the contents of the letter were true.
  • B. Ben is liable for defaming Luke as the communication of the letter’s content was made to a third party.
  • C. Ben is not liable for defaming Luke as the letter was addressed to Luke.
  • D. Ben is liable for defaming Luke as the letter contained abusive words against Luke.
Answer is C is correct. There is a relevance of intention to communicate to the third party in cases of defamation. In the aforementioned case, the mere knowledge of the contents of the abusive letter, to the servant of Luke is not enough to constitute the offence of defamation. Therefore, Option C is the appropriate response.
Question3:- Herald is delivering a speech in the parliament, wherein he makes questionable remarks and allegations of corruption against Mr. Gucci. Herald’s allegations against Mr. Gucci turned out to be true. Determine Herald’s liability in this case.
  • A. Herald is not liable for defaming Mr. Gucci as he is protected by parliamentary privilege.
  • B. Herald is not liable for defaming Mr. Gucci as his allegations turned out to be true.
  • C. Herald is liable for defaming Mr. Gucci as he openly made a speech against him.
  • D. Herald is liable for defaming Mr. Gucci as he made questionable remarks against him.
Answer is A is correct. Since parliamentary proceedings and the contents thereof are protected by the exception of parliamentary privilege, Herald cannot be held liable for defaming Mr. Gucci. Therefore, Option A is the appropriate response.
Question4:- Roy posted a video of a civil servant, Stephen, taking a bribe, on his social media account. The video becomes viral and Stephen is removed from his prestigious position. Determine Roy’s liability if Stephen chooses to sue him for defamation.
  • A. Roy is liable for defamation of Stephen as he lost his job and prestige.
  • B. Roy is liable for defamation of Stephen as he violated Stephen’s privacy in making the video.
  • C. Roy is not liable for defamation as he published true statements for public good.
  • D. Roy is not liable for defamation as he only posted the video on his own social media.
Answer is C is correct. True statements made for the public good are exempt from being punished under the defamation law. Hence, Roy is not liable for the defamation of Stephen on account of exposing the truth. Therefore, Option C is the appropriate response.