Exceptions to Section 499 IPC

First Exception: Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published

• It is not defamation to imply anything that is true about another person if the imputation is made or published for the public benefit. It is an issue of fact, whether it is for the public interest or not.
• To qualify for this exception, the accused must demonstrate that the statement he made was truthful in both substance and effect, not only in part. To prove that the statement was published for the public good or not, an investigation must be conducted into whether the publication aimed to provide any benefit to the whole or part of the public.
• In Rajendra Vishwanath Chaudhary Versus Nayantara Durgadas Vasudeo (2012), there was a civil dispute between the parties over the property where the complainant’s school is located and managed. While the dispute was underway in civil court, the accused’s warning to the parents to enrol their children at their own risk in the summer program could not be regarded as defamatory or damaging to the complainant’s reputation. So, the aforesaid caution notice may not be regarded as imputations actionable under Section 499 of the IPC, 1860.

Second Exception: Public conduct of public servants 

• It is not defamation to state in good faith any view about a public servant’s conduct in the performance of his official responsibilities, or about his character, to the extent that his character shows in that conduct, and no further.
• Every person has the right to speak on public officials’ actions that affect him as a citizen of the country, as long as their comments are not wrapped in hatred. In order for a comment to be fair,
  • It should be based on the true facts.  
  • It should not impute corrupt or dishonest motives to the person whose conduct or work is being criticised unless such imputations are justified by the facts.
  • It must be an honest and fair observation of the writer’s true perspective.
  • It must be for the common good.
• In Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal Versus Sheshrao Anandrao Lad (2011), the Bombay High Court stated that any comment voiced in good faith by a government servant while engaging in the execution of his responsibilities would not be considered defamation. This suit focuses on a comment made by a Panchayat member. A member of the Panchayat helping a court of justice is included in the term of “public servant” under Clause 5 of Section 21, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As a result, members of the Panchayat’s view, given in good faith to help the Court of Justice, does not constitute defamation.

Third Exception: Conduct of any person touching any public question

• It is not defamation to express in good faith any view on any person’s conduct in respect to any public issue, and to respect his character only to the extent that his character is revealed in that conduct. Publicists who participate in politics or other problems affecting the public might be criticised in good faith.
• Comparative advertisement: A commercial advertisement is a type of speech, and “commercial speech” is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Comparative advertising is a form of advertising in which one party promotes his or her goods or services by contrasting them with those of another. The marketer has the right to brag about its technological superiority over the competitor’s goods. He cannot, however, degrade the competitor’s goods while doing so. Negative marketing is not permitted if the advertisement is a suggestive campaign against a competitor’s goods.
• In Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Limited - Versus - Raman Fibre Sciences Private Limited (2011), the claim was that an advertisement by the petitioner and associated traders disparaged the respondents’ company. The associated traders confirmed that they carried out the supposed advertising on their own and that the petitioner company had no involvement. The petitioner is not charged with a crime under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (1860).

Fourth Exception: Publishing reports of court proceedings

• Publication of a substantially true report of a Court of Justice’s proceedings, or the result of any such proceedings, is not defamation.
• When judicial proceedings take place in an open court before a legally constituted judicial panel, the publishing, without malice, of a fair and accurate report of what happens before that tribunal is privileged.
• In Maksud Saiyed Versus State of Gujarat & Others (2007), the appellant had business with the respondent company. Dena Bank had given the appellant a loan. As the loans were not recovered, an initial application was brought against him before the Ahmedabad Debts Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of Rs. 120.13 lakhs. Meanwhile, based on the pending suit, the respondent firm brought claims against the appellant business’s Managing Director. The Supreme Court concluded the statement that the issue was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal instead of the City Civil Court in Ahmedabad, could not be considered defamatory in and of itself, given the fact that a suit was pending.

Fifth Exception: Merits of the case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned

• It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion about the merits of any case, civil or criminal, that has been decided by a Court of Justice, or about the conduct of any person as a party, witness, or agent in any such case, or about the character of such person, to the extent that his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
• The court’s decision, the jury’s verdict, and the conduct of the parties and witnesses can all be made open to public debate. However, critique must be expressed in good faith and in a fair manner.
• In Harbans Singh - Versus - State of Rajasthan (1998), the topic of whether the word “shatir” was defamatory was considered. According to the Rajasthan High Court, the term “shatir” may be offensive and disagreeable, but it is not always defamatory. The court’s decision to dismiss the case was upheld.

Sixth Exception: Merits of public performance 

• It is not defamation to express in good faith any view on the merits of any performance that its author has presented to the public’s judgement, or about the author’s character, so far as it is shown in such performance, and no further.
• The purpose of this exception is to allow the public to be assisted in its evaluation of the public performance under review. All types of public performances can be legitimately criticised as long as the criticisms are presented in good faith and in a fair manner. Under this exception, good faith does not require logical infallibility, but rather proper care and attention.
• In Ranganayakamma - Versus - K Venugopala Rao (1987), the appellant criticised the complainant’s preface to a book. In his defence, the appellant used exceptions 6 and 9 of Section 499. The Andhra High Court noted that the section of the petitioner’s critique that uses two defamatory terms has nothing to do with the substance of the complainant’s ‘Preface.’ The defamatory statements cannot be deemed to have been made in the public interest. As a result, the court determined that the petitioner was not protected under either the sixth or ninth exceptions.

Seventh Exception: Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another

• It is not defamation for a person who has power over another, whether given by law or growing out of a legitimate contract, to pass in good faith any criticism of the other person’s behaviour on issues to which such valid authority pertains.
• This exception authorises a person under whose control others have been put, either by their own accord or by law, to criticise, in good faith, those who have been placed under his authority, inasmuch as that authority relates to the situation at hand. However, if this privilege is abused in any manner, the crime will be constituted.
• Even if a man makes a good faith report to a servant’s master about the servant’s behaviour, he is not secure if he publishes the complaint in a newspaper.
• A spiritual superior may be guarded by privilege when reciting and publishing a sentence of expulsion as long as the publication is limited to what is necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the privilege is granted, such as the censure of a member in religious matters or the communication of a sentence he is authorised to pronounce to those who are to be guided by it. 
• In ADM Stubbings - Versus - Shella Muthu, (1972), the plaintiff was dismissed from service after a full domestic inquiry in which the plaintiff was given the chance to protect himself. The result of such a domestic inquiry saying that the allegation was true could not form the basis of a defamation case because it is fully protected by exceptions 7 and 8 of Section 499, IPC, 1860. Holding otherwise would result in the administration of justice being hindered.

Eighth Exception: Accusation preferred in good faith to an authorised person

• It is not defamation to make in good faith an accusation against someone to anybody who has authorised jurisdiction over that person in relation to the subject matter of the charge.
• In order to establish a defence under this exception, the accused would have to show that the person who lodged the complaint had legal authority over the person who was being charged in the situation at hand. Besides, in a criminal defamation case, even defamatory allegations stated in a plaint are not completely protected.
• In Yadav Motiram Patil - Versus - Rajiv G Ghodankar (2010), the accused No. 1 and other members of the society reached out to the police because the message they received contained some indecent images and defamatory statements against the accused No. 1’s daughter, and they expected assistance, which could include necessary action against the criminal. The issue is clearly protected by exception 8, and no case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could be brought out.
• To be eligible for this exception, the charge must be made to a person in power over the person accused, and it must be made in good faith.

Ninth Exception: Imputation made in good faith by a person for the protection of his or others’ interests

• Making an imputation on the character of the other person is not defamatory if the imputation is made in good faith to defend the interests of the person making the imputation, or anybody else, or for the public good.
• According to this exception, the party to whom the information is communicated has an interest in safeguarding the person making the accusation. Apart from the maker’s bona fides, the person to whom the imputation is communicated must share a shared interest with the imputation maker that is served by the communication.
• This exception applies to any imputation made in good faith, whereas the first exception only applies to genuine imputation for the public benefit. The accused must show that he responded in good faith.
• In Vedurumudi Rama Rao - Versus - Chennuri Venkat Rao, (1997), a bank’s regional manager sent a private circular to his region’s branch managers, instructing them to exercise caution when dealing with people on the list, including the complainant. In the public interest and on orders from the Central Office, he published the directive in his executive capacity. According to the Court, the circular was protected under Exception 9. As a result, even if the accusations in the complaint were true, no violation of Section 500 would be established.