Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Publication to a Third Party - For defamation to be established, the defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one third party, not just the plaintiff. Several sources emphasize that publication occurs when the statement is made known to someone other than the defamed individual, such as a third party or the public. For example, publication occurs when the defamatory words are published to a third party ["PENG CHOONG LENG vs KUA BOON HAUN - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], and the defamatory matter must be published to a third party, and not simply to the plaintiff ["SHEIKH ABDULLAH AHMAD vs UNIVERSAL MUSIC (M) SDN BHD - 2017 MarsdenLR 509"].
Instructing a Third Party to Post Defamatory Content - An individual instructing a third party to publish a defamatory statement can be held liable if the statement is indeed published to a third party. Multiple cases confirm that liability arises if the defendant either directly publishes or causes the publication through third parties. For instance, the defendant is liable for the publications of third parties after the 1st Impugned Defamatory Article went viral ["MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - 2024 MarsdenLR 321"], and the defendant's conduct in subsequently attempting to have the post removed demonstrates some recognition of the consequences of his actions ["CHU KIM FOONG & ORS vs LAI ZHEN YEAN - High Court"].
Direct vs. Indirect Publication - The act of instructing or causing a third party to publish defamatory material amounts to publication if the message is communicated to and received by the third party. The conduct of the defendant in getting the reply prepared after giving full instructions... would certainly amount to a defamation ["BOREGOWDA VS C. D. DEVAIAH - Karnataka"]. Merely dictating or instructing a third party to publish can satisfy the publication element if the third party becomes aware of the defamatory content.
Proof of Publication and Responsibility - Courts require proof that the defamatory statement was communicated to a third party. Failure to demonstrate this, such as not calling witnesses or not providing sufficient evidence of publication, weakens a defamation claim. For example, it is not proven that the defendant did utter the defamatory words to a third party ["MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - 2024 MarsdenLR 321"], and there is no evidence that the plaintiff, as then Minister, was aware of the publication ["KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN ABU BAKAR vs MOHD RASYIQ MOHD ALWI - High Court"].
Defences and Privilege - Some sources mention that if the publication is made in a context protected by qualified privilege (e.g., in the course of duty or on a matter of mutual interest), liability may be mitigated. However, malicious publication or false attribution often defeats such privileges, as seen in the manner of publication demonstrating malice that defeats any claimed privilege ["SARASWATHY SHIRKE DEO vs AMUTHA AYAWOO & ORS - High Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The main insight is that an individual instructing or causing a third party to publish a defamatory statement can be held liable if the publication to a third party occurs. The key elements include proving that the defamatory words were communicated to a third party and that the defendant either personally published or caused the publication through third parties. Evidence of actual publication, direct or indirect, is crucial. Defendants may rely on defenses like qualified privilege, but malicious intent or false attribution can nullify such defenses. Overall, liability hinges on the act of causing or facilitating the publication to a third party, not merely the act of making the statement.
In today's digital age, social media and online platforms amplify statements quickly, but what happens when someone doesn't post defamatory content themselves? Instead, they instruct a third party—such as an employee, agent, or social media handler—to do it. This raises a critical question: an individual instructs a third party to post a defamatory statement—can the instructor be held legally liable?
Under Indian law, which draws from common law principles on defamation, the answer is generally yes. Authorizing or instructing publication can make you as liable as the direct publisher. This blog post breaks down the legal principles, key cases, and practical implications, helping you navigate potential pitfalls. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Indian courts typically hold that a person who authorizes or instructs a third party to publish defamatory content participates in the publication, making them liable for libel or slander. As established in legal texts applied in Indian jurisprudence:
A person who authorises an agent or employee to make defamatory imputations of the claimant or who grants to another a right to print, publish, reproduce or sell a publication containing a defamatory imputation is liable for such publication. LIM GUANG ENG vs OH TONG KEONG & ANOTHER CASE - 2025 MarsdenLR 1607
This principle underscores that liability isn't limited to the direct poster. Instructing someone to post defamatory material—whether on social media, blogs, or elsewhere—facilitates publication, exposing the instructor to claims.
Liability also extends broadly:
Liability extends to anyone who participates in, secures, or authorizes the publication of defamatory material. MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - 2024 MarsdenLR 321
These points from Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy and Gatley on Libel and Slander align with Indian defamation law under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which requires publication to a third party, and civil remedies for damages.
To succeed in a defamation claim in India, three elements must generally be proven:- The statement is defamatory (lowers reputation in others' eyes).- It refers to the plaintiff.- It is published to at least one third party. ROSALIND TAN KEHNG SUAN vs NG KOK KHOONNG ZE XUAN vs TAN SING HOW & ORS
Publication occurs when defamatory matter is communicated to someone other than the defamed person. For instance:
Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. G. I. Retail Private Limited VS Goomo Orbit Corporate & Leisure Travels (I) Private Limited - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2167Experion Developers Private Limited VS UP Television Network Private Limited - 2020 Supreme(Del) 1313
In cases involving books or media, courts have ruled that distribution—even to booksellers—constitutes publication, as recipients may read it out of curiosity. Similarly, instructing a third party to post online mirrors this: the instructor knows or should know it will reach an audience. Gmr Infrastructure Ltd. VS Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 Supreme(Del) 993
Directly instructing publication ties the instructor to the act. Courts view this as active participation. In digital contexts, like social media posts or shares, republishing or facilitating spread incurs equal liability:
In Malaysia, a person who republishes or shares defamatory content that vilifies another is as liable as the original author. CHUA CHIN SOON vs WONG YEW CHOONG
While this source is Malaysian, it reflects common law principles influential in India. Indian cases reinforce that even ex-parte proceedings against media for defamatory broadcasts hold publishers (and by extension, authorizers) accountable, awarding damages for reputational harm. A real estate company successfully sued a TV network, with the court noting companies can claim defamation for business reputation loss. Damages compensated vindication of good name.
Multiple judgments emphasize third-party communication:- Statements made in meetings or Zoom calls to third parties qualify as publication. PRAKASH MANIAM @ SUBRAMANIAM vs PUVENESWARAN ARUMUGAMNG ZE XUAN vs TAN SING HOW & ORS- Social media posts, if shared widely, show malice if unsubstantiated. JASON JONATHAN LO vs STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD & ORS
In one case, defamatory Facebook posts insinuating guilt weren't shielded by attributing to third-party sources; the sting lay in the insinuation itself. Defendants couldn't hide behind sources. Courts awarded damages (e.g., RM200,000) when truth defenses failed. JASON JONATHAN LO vs STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD & ORS
Indian rulings align: No defamation without publication to a third party, per IPC Section 500 interpretations. Private communications don't suffice; evidence of third-party receipt is key. Madanjit Kumar VS J. P. Singh - 2019 Supreme(Del) 342SURENDER SINGH KASANA VS STATE - 2019 Supreme(Del) 143
No blanket exceptions exist for authorizers, but standard defenses may apply:- Truth (Justification): Prove the statement's substantial truth.- Fair Comment: On public interest matters, without malice.- Privilege: Absolute (e.g., court proceedings) or qualified.
However, these defenses target the content's merit, not negating authorization liability. Failure to substantiate leads to damages for reputational injury, presumed in libel. Malice aggravates awards. NG ZE XUAN vs TAN SING HOW & ORS
In employment or domestic disputes, instructing defamatory posts could compound claims under IPC or civil law, but prematurity or lack of publication evidence dismisses cases. SURENDER SINGH KASANA VS STATE - 2019 Supreme(Del) 143
Businesses face heightened scrutiny; a company's good conduct reputation is suable. Courts grant injunctions against further broadcasts or online shares.
Instructing a third party to post defamatory content typically incurs liability under Indian law, as it constitutes authorization and participation in publication. Key texts and cases—from Carter-RuckLIM GUANG ENG vs OH TONG KEONG & ANOTHER CASE - 2025 MarsdenLR 1607 to IPC interpretations—confirm this. While defenses exist, prevention trumps cure.
Key Takeaways:- Authorization = Liability. MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - 2024 MarsdenLR 321- Publication needs third-party communication.- Damages vindicate reputation; malice worsens outcomes.- Always consult professionals.
Stay informed, post responsibly, and protect your reputation in the digital world.
#DefamationIndia, #LegalLiability, #IndiaLaw
[37] However, after the Statement of Defence was amended two years later as shown in the Amended Statement of Defence dated 23 September 2020, the Defendant claimed for the first time that the impugned messages were made by a third party and not him. ... messages referred to the Plaintiff; (d) whether the alleged defamatory messages were published to a third party; (e) whether the Defendant in publishing the alleged defamatory messages was protected....
Whether The Defendant Is Liable For Any Third-Party Publications Pleaded By The Plaintiff? ... If so, are they defamatory to the plaintiff? (b) Whether the defendant is liable for any third-party publications pleaded by the plaintiff? (c) Whether the 2nd and 3rd Impugned Defamatory Articles constitute defamatory remarks which are defamatory to the plaintiff? ... [58] The plaintiff claims that the defendant is responsible for the publications of #HL....
and not to the chairman of JMC and was issued by the Defendant to a third party. ... imputation; (ii) The defamatory imputation refers to the plaintiff; and (iii) The article was published to a third party by the defendant. ... [16] According to the plaintiff based on the above facts, the questions that the Court has to decide are: (a) Whether the defendant published the Impugned Statement to a third party? ... (iii) The Article Was Published To ....
All the Defendants are liable for Defamatory Statement 4. [65] Alleged Defamatory Statement 5 Date: 21 May 2021 (attached to Statement 4). ... [72] This Court finds Statement 6 defamatory based on the false attribution, malicious publication, and wide dissemination to third parties, going well beyond legitimate internal record-keeping. ... Thus, there is no publications to third parties other themselves. The Defence qualified pri....
Upon considering the Facebook Post as a whole, I find the contents to be defamatory. ... The 25th May Article, taken as a whole, was not a case of neutral reporting or merely attributing what was reported to some other third-party source. The sting of the 25th May Article was an insinuation of guilt. ... [35] The Defendants cannot expect to hide behind the use of such words to defend themselves by attributing the source of the information for such publication to a third party. This go....
The statements are defamatory in nature. b. The statements refer to the Plaintiff. c. The statements are published to a third party. ... Whether The Statements Are Published To A Third Party [103] Publication occurs when the defamatory statements are communicated to at least one person other than the Plaintiff (see: S Pakianathan v. ... reputation; and (iii) the statement must have been published to a third person by the defendant. ... (b) The 17 J....
[3] The Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendant for defamatory statements uttered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the presence of a third party. ... Despite the Defendant's claims that Shashi was an "interested party," he was a third party to whom the Defamatory Statements were published. d. The Defendant's denial was unsustainable, and he failed to substantiate his alleged defences. e. ... were made in the presence of a third#HL_END....
A mere statement in the Plaintiffs' pleading that a group of employees overheard the Impugned Words without elaborating their full identities to substantiate the allegation is not sufficient to support the Plaintiffs' averment that the element of communication to a third party is sustainable. ... [42] For the third element, ie publication of the Impugned Words, the law is settled that to constitute publication, the Impugned Words must have been communicated to at least one third party....
[1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 233 , the Supreme Court held: "In order to constitute publication, the defamatory matter must be published to a third party, and not simply to the plaintiff. ... [12] At the trial, evidence was led that a police report was made by a third party which led to the Plaintiff being arrested on 20 September 2021 on charge of alleged cheating ... In Malaysia, a person who republishes or shares defamatory content that vilifies another is as liable as the original author of ....
c. the statements are published to a third party. ... Whether The Statements Are Published To A Third Party [103] Publication occurs when the defamatory statements are communicated to at least one person other than the Plaintiff (see: S Pakianathan v. ... reputation; and (iii) the statement must have been published to a third person by the defendant. ... (b) The 17 July 2021 Zoom Defamatory Statement No 1. (c) The 17 July 2021 Zo....
All the three defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication.
Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication. All the there defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party.
“The only rule is that there can be no offence of defamation unless the defamatory statement is published or communicated to a third party, that is, to a party other than the person defamed...” (emphasis supplied) Following the view taken by the full bench decision of the Privy Council in Queen Empress Vs. Taki Husain, 7A 205 (FB) -4A.W.N. (1884) 340, Allahabad High Court in a very early decision reported as Khima Nand and Anr. vs. Emperor, 1936 SCC Online All 307: 1937 Crl. LJ 806 held thus :-
In a very well researched judgment on the subject rendered by Patna High Court in case reported as Sardar Amar Singh Vs. K.S. Badalia, 1964 SCC OnLine Pat 186 : (1965) 2 Cri LJ 693, it was held thus :- “One of the ingredients of the offence of defamation is that there should be making or publication of any imputation concerning any person. Following the view taken by the full bench decision of the Privy Council in Queen Empress Vs. Taki Husain, 7A 205 (FB) -4A.W.N. (1884) 340, Allahabad High Court in a very early decision reported as Khima Nand and Anr. vs. Emperor, 1936 SCC Online All 307: ....
Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. All the three defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
