“MANISHA KOIRALA VS. SHASHILAL NAIR AND ORS”
PART I
INTRODUCTION
Torts are committed all across society, but some people try to take advantage of them unfairly without providing any legal evidence. As a result, the researcher uses this research paper to analyze a case and seek to educate the public about scenarios similar to the one in the case.
Here researcher finds that the four scenes in the film "Ek Chhoti Si Love Story," each lasting four minutes which were the subject of controversy in the case "Manisha Koirala vs. Shashilal Nair and ors.[1]”. The narrative of the film revolved around a 15-year-old adolescent boy who was obsessed with a 26-year-old young lady who was in an intimate relationship with a guy. The complainant is an actress who appeared in the film and had a prominent part. The case's principal defendant, Defendant No. 1, was the director of the film. The film was cleared by the Censor Board and received an 'A' certificate.
Plaintiff had acted throughout the film, with the exception of four moments that were enacted by a double and which the Plaintiff objected to as being vulgar and indecent. A letter was sent to the Plaintiff from Defendant No.1 in which it was written that, “In regards to the film, ‘Ek Chhoti Si Love Story’, this is to inform you, that portions of the film, has been shot by a duplicate, which involves a certain level of physical exposure. If you have (any) objection to any particular section, we stand to replace it with alternate shots.” And then in result of this the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for breach of contract, invasion to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood.
Characterization
This research paper contains four chapter related to the topic.
1. Chapter I named “DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY” defines all the three terms in detail.
2. Chapter II i.e. “CASES RELATED TO THE TOPIC” covers various case laws related to three terms which were defined in first chapter.
3. Chapter III i.e. “CASE ANALYSIS” which contains the facts, arguments on the behalf of the plaintiff, arguments on the behalf of the defendant and the judgment.
4. Chapter IV i.e. “CASE COMMENT” where there is the opinion of the researcher in relation to the topic.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. “The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation[2]” by Van Vechten Veeder
The author through his article stated that if the laws of each age were formulated systematically, no part of the legal system would be more informative than the law relating to defamation. Since the law of defamation purports to protect personal reputations and public institutions from defamatory attacks without compromising freedom of expression and the benefit of public debate, the estimate made about the relative importance of these aims, as well as the degree of success achieved in reconciling them, would be an excellent indicator of each age's culture, liberality, and practical skill. The English law of Defamation, however, is not a conscious creation of any age. It is a mass that has grown by aggregation with little legislative involvement, and exceptional and peculiar conditions have molded its fluctuating direction from time to time. As a result, maybe no other branch of law is as vulnerable to criticism for its ambiguities and problems, as well as its meaningless and bizarre peculiarities. And at last he added that therefore, it is, as a whole, ridiculous in theory, and frequently mischievous in practise.
2. “Malice as an Ingredient of Tort Liability[3]” by John Murphy
In this article the author talks about the malice element in the tort law. He talks about the fact that whether malice is proper criteria of liability in tort law and for this he identifies it in regards of various torts. He also talks about those torts in which malice plays a secondary or contingent role and further he defines the tort of malicious falsehood in detail and with some examples.
3. “Right to Privacy under Article 21 and the related conflicts[4]” by Hinailiyas
The author in his article explains Article 21 and conflicts related to it. He states that Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21's right to life has been widely interpreted to entail more than mere survival and animal existence. As a result, it encompasses all aspects of life that make a man's existence more meaningful, complete, and worthwhile, and the right to privacy is one of them. The Supreme Court held in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[5] that Regulation 236 of the Uttar Pradesh police regulations was unconstitutional because it conflicted with Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to privacy is an element of the right to life and personal liberty, according to the Court. The Court had equated privacy with personal liberty in this case.
4. “Defamation[6]” by Sakshi Raje
The author in her article well-defined the tort of defamation and stated that Defamation is hurt to a person's reputation inflicted by another person. It is a deed that is regarded as heinous. Because a man's reputation is generally seen as his most prized asset, which he never wants to lose, the publication of any defamatory comment about him or her may result in situations that are equivalent to unlawful interference with one's property. Everyone has the right to free expression, but that right does not include publishing false information or making defamatory statements about others. She later on defined various sections in the Indian constitution that provide citizens with the right to life, including article 21, which grants citizens the right not to be defamed without justification by others. Along with article 21, article 19(1) (a) guarantees citizens the right to free speech, with the caveat that the remark made public should not be defamatory.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
There are mainly two methods for leading the research work and that are doctrinal and non-doctrinal methods. The doctrinal method is that in which the researcher emphasis on the information already available to him like the blogs, reports, journals, articles etc. written by various authors. On the other hand the non-doctrinal method is the direct opposite to it as in this the researcher don’t emphasis on other’s work but instead of this he goes through fieldwork in detail for understanding the matter himself for accomplishing the research work.
In this research paper, the researcher had opted doctrinal research method as he had to emphasis on the existing case and also because he tried to understand the situation of the case in depth through various articles, blogs, reports and other various legal sources. So, that’s why the researcher chooses doctrinal method as he had collected the data from numerous secondary sources for getting in depth knowledge of the case and also to perform effective and qualitative research on such a case, it is best recommended to prefer this type of research method i.e. doctrinal method.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The researcher had done this research to analyze the case mentioned above in depth and to get to know that whether there was really breach of contract, invasion to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood. The researcher did the research to protect people in the country from the same kind of allegations which were raised against the Defendant No.1. The case is related to India so the researcher found it better to confine the study to inspection in India itself. Also this study will stress on understanding the terms like defamation, malicious falsehood etc. and will relate these with the current case.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
There are some important objectives that the researcher had setup for understanding the case and the topic in detail:
v To know the facts of the case in detail and to understand it.
v To know the main subject matter of the case and relate it with the allegations (breach of contract, invasion to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood) rose against the Defendant No.1.
v To understand the causes behind the matter and to aware the public of the country in relation to the cases like this.
v To analyze the case and to try to find the alternate best possible outcome of the case according to the researcher.
RESEARCH QUESTION
v What is Defamation, Malicious Falsehood?
v What does right to privacy stands for and under which article it is given in Indian Constitution?
v What are the allegation provided by the defendant and the plaintiff in the given case?
v Was the judgment in the case proper?
PART II
1. DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY
v Defamation – According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), “anyone makes or publishes any imputation respecting any person with the intent to injure, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, that person's reputation is said to defame that person. According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), anyone makes or publishes any imputation respecting any person with the intent to injure, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, that person's reputation is said to defame that person”.
The protection of one's reputation, which is embodied in our defamation legislation, has become increasingly crucial. Along with the law of privacy, which includes confidentiality, reputation protection is an important right for individuals and businesses, particularly in the advertising industry, where image and celebrity rights are so important. The right of an individual, firm, or company to have their reputation or goodwill preserved is balanced by the right to freedom of speech under defamation law.
The plaintiff must show that the comment in question pertains to him and damages his reputation in order to prove defamation. It makes no difference whether the defendant meant to defame the plaintiff or not if the defamatory comment was directed at him. It should be highlighted that the defendant's intention is not required to find him accountable for defamation. However, if the defendant unintentionally refers to someone else while publishing, the defendant could be held liable for defamation of others. Defamation does not include merely making a defamatory comment. The publication of such a statement is required in order to prove defamation. Defamation usually entails the unjustified publication of a negative and/or false remark about another person or party. Slander or libel is two types of defamation. Slander is a spoken defamatory statement, whereas libel is a defamatory declaration in writing or other visible forms.
v Malicious Falsehood - A malicious falsehood is a false statement made with the intent to harm the claimant. In this situation, malicious means that the defendant either knew or failed to check that the statement was false. It is frequently covered under defamation laws. Malicious falsehood exists to defend against statements that are not defamatory in them but are untrue and cause harm. There is no requirement to demonstrate reputational harm.
An example of malicious falsehood can be that if it was said that a solicitor had retired from practice. As a result, there may be a financial loss as a result of lost trade. It is a false statement; nonetheless, it is not defamatory because it does not imply anything negative about the solicitor other than the fact that he is no longer in practise. A comparative advertisement is another example; a false statement about your competitor's products is unlikely to be defamatory, but if false, could lead to a malicious falsehood lawsuit.
v Right to Privacy – The right to privacy is a set of rights. According to Black's Law Dictionary, privacy is defined as "the right to be left alone; a person's right to be free from unwarranted notoriety; the right to exist without unwarranted public intrusion in areas with which the public is not necessarily concerned."
Right to Privacy comes under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as it states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Over time, the scope of Article 21 has been expanded to embrace all areas of life that make a person's existence meaningful, complete, and worth living.
2. CASES RELATED TO THE TOPIC
v In the case of S.N.M. Abdi vs. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta[7], an article published in the Illustrated Weekly of India made claims against the then Chief Minister of Assam, Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, for the improper use of man and muscle power. The plaintiff was given damages of up to Rs. 5,00,000/- for the defamatory article that was published.
v There is also a case named D.P. Choudhary vs. Manjulata[8] in which plaintiff was a 17-year-old college student. She ran away with a boy named Kamlesh around 11 a.m. after she went out of the house claiming she had lectures, according to a local news storey published in the daily Dainik Navjyoti on December 18, 1977. The news item that was released was incorrect and was published carelessly. She was taken aback, and it was having a negative impact on her known one and her marriage prospects. As a result, it was determined that the words published were defamatory and hence actionable. She is entitled to a general damages award of Rs. 10,000/-.
v The Supreme Court ruled in R. Rajgopal v. State of T.N[9]. that the right to privacy is a "right to be left alone." Without his permission, no one can write anything on the above topics, whether true or false, laudatory or critical. If he does so, he will be infringing on the person's right to privacy and will be responsible in a damages case.
v In Mahendra Ram vs. Harnandan Prasad[10], a defamatory statement written in Urdu to the plaintiff was published in the form of a written letter. Plaintiff does not understand Urdu and thus requires another person to read it for him. It was decided that the defendant could not be held accountable until it was established that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was unfamiliar with Urdu and would require assistance in reading it.
3. CASE ANALYSIS
v Facts of the Case
The four scenes in the film "Ek Chhoti Si Love Story," each lasting four minutes, were the subject of controversy in the case "Manisha Koirala vs. Shashilal Nair and ors.”. The narrative of the film revolved around a 15-year-old adolescent boy who was obsessed with a 26-year-old young lady who was in an intimate relationship with a guy. The complainant is an actress who appeared in the film and had a prominent part. The case's principal defendant, Defendant No. 1, was the director of the film. The film was cleared by the Censor Board and received an 'A' certificate. Plaintiff had acted throughout the film, with the exception of four moments that were enacted by a double and which Plaintiff objected to as being vulgar and indecent. Then a letter was sent to the Plaintiff from Defendant No.1 in which it was written that, “In regards to the film, ‘Ek Chhoti Si Love Story’, this is to inform you, that portions of the film, has been shot by a duplicate, which involves a certain level of physical exposure. If you have my (any) objection to any particular section, we stand to replace it with alternate shots.” And then in result of this the Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant for breach of contract, invasion to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood.
WRITER:
NAME: SANKET DHULL
COLLEGE: Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
[1] Manisha Koirala v. Shashilal Nair and ors., (2003) 2003 (2) BomCR 136 (India) [2] Van Vechten Veeder, The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation, 3 Columbia Law Review, 546-573 (2021) [3] John Murphy, Malice as an Ingredient of Tort Liability, Cambridge University Press, May 10 2019 [4] Hinailiyas, Right to Privacy under Article 21 and the related conflicts, Legal Service India, Sept-Oct. 2015, at 21-23 [5] Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1962) 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332 (India) [6] Sakshi Raje, Defamation, Law Times Journal, Sept. 2018, at 40-45 [7] S.N.M. Abdi vs. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, (2001) AIR 2002 Gau 75 (India) [8] Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad, (1958) AIR 1958 Pat 445 [9] D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata, (1997) AIR 1997 Raj 170 (India) [10] R. Rajgopal v. State of T.N, (1994) 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632 (India)