Section 499 IPC: Truth Set Up As Defence Must Extend To Entire Libel And Not Merely Part Of It
⚖️ Section 499 IPC – Defamation
🔹 Legal Definition:
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation as:
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm... his reputation, is said... to defame that person.”
Punishment:
Under Section 500 IPC, punishment for defamation is simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
🔹 Exception 1 to Section 499 – Truth as Defence
One of the ten exceptions to defamation under Section 499 is:
“It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published.”
Therefore, to invoke this exception, two conditions must be met:
The imputation must be true in substance and fact, and
Its publication must be for the public good (this is a question of fact to be decided by the court).
🔎 Key Legal Principle:
“Truth as a defence must cover the whole defamatory imputation, not just parts of it. Partial truth is not a valid defence under Exception 1 to Section 499.”
📜 Detailed Explanation:
1. Complete Truth is Required
If a statement is partly true and partly false or exaggerated in a way that harms reputation, the defence of truth fails.
A person cannot justify defamatory allegations by proving that only a part of them is true.
The entire defamatory content must be justified as substantially true.
2. Truth Alone is Not Enough
Even if the statement is true, it must serve the public good.
Courts examine intent, context, and public interest.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law
📌 Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, AIR 1981 SC 1514
Facts: The accused published an article alleging corruption by a public servant.
Held: The truth of the entire imputation must be proved, not just parts.
SC Observed:
“The truth of a defamatory statement must be proved in its entirety to avail the benefit of Exception 1. The burden of proof lies on the accused, and public good is a separate element to be established.”
📌 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of freedom of press vs. defamation.
It emphasized that unverified or partially true publications cannot be protected as fair reporting or public interest.
📌 K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier, 1977 Cri LJ 1011 (Ker)
The Kerala High Court held that:
“The accused must prove the truth of the entire article which forms the subject matter of the complaint. Selective truth or justification is not a defence.”
📌 S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600
Supreme Court stressed that:
“Publication of truthful material must still pass the public good test under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC.”
⚖️ Key Takeaways
| Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Complete Truth | The accused must prove the truth of the entire defamatory matter, not just parts of it. |
| 2. Public Good | The publication must serve a legitimate public interest or benefit. |
| 3. Burden of Proof | Lies on the accused to establish both truth and public good. |
| 4. Partial Truth Not Enough | Even if some parts are true, falsehood in any part can invalidate the defence. |
🔚 Conclusion
Under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC, truth is a qualified defence to defamation.
The entire libel must be true, and its publication must be for the public good.
Courts have consistently ruled that partial or selective truth does not protect the accused from liability.
This principle ensures that individuals do not escape liability for defamation merely by cherry-picking facts, and it upholds the dignity and reputation of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments