1981CLCC474 (PLP)

(a) Tort‑ Defamation‑Principles of law of libel as taken from English law as well as from law in sub‑continent restated.‑[Defamation]. That a matter will be deemed to be defamatory if it exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or tends to injure him in his profession or trade. That a publication should not go beyond the limits of a fair comment on the subject‑matter discussed in the publication. That any criticism is fair comment if it is in the opinion of Court, not beyond what any fair man, however prejudiced, or however strong his opinion may be, would say in criticising a work. A fair, honest, independent, bald, even exaggerated or wrong criticism is within the accepted limits. That a criticism is not fair criticism where the author is attacked apart from the work or where the critic imputes to the author that he has written what he was not, that is not a question of criticism at all. It is one thing to say that a work has a. bad tendency, that, is a matter of opinion. But to say of a work that it contains what it does not would not be an expression of opinion but a misstatement of fact, therefore, it would not be fair criticism to impute a man that he has written what he has not. It is '~ not permissible to make personal imputations not arising out of the subject- matter or not based on facts. The word `fair' used in the expression fair comment has no definition in law but has to be given its ordinary meaning. However, the word `fair embraces the meaning of honest and also of relevance. Further, if in criticising the conduct of a man in relation to a matter of public interest the writer gone on to impute to him base and sordid motives, where being no facts to warrant the imputation the comment cannot be said to be `fair' and therefore, the defence of `fair comment' cannot be maintained in an action for libel. That once the words are prima facie defamatory the burden of proof of the defence of fair comment rests on the defendant. An artist or writer, author, literary critic or poet or even a translator should not be oversensitive for what he offers to a general public is either approved, appreciated, or disapproved or depricated and the same would depend on the place, people, society and time where the work of literature or art etc. is offered. Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn., Vol. 24, p. 19, paras. 40, 127; Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All E R 1237 ; American Life Insurance Company v. Khwaja P L D 1960 Kar. 568 ; Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 R & S 769 ; Marivale v. Carson (1886‑90) All E R (Reprint) 264 ; Underhill on Law of Torts, 3rd Edn., Article 96 ; Murlidhar Jeramdass v. Narayandas A I R 1914 Sind 85 ; Surajmal B. Mehta v. B. G. Horniman and others A I R 1917 Bom. 62 ; Biqbi v. Financial News Ltd. (1907) 1 K B 502 ; Munt v. Star Newspaper Co., (1908) 2 K B 309 ; Purshottam Vijay of Indore v. The State A I R 1961 Madh. Pra. 205 ; O. M. Qarni v. Mir Ahalilur Rehman and 4 others P L D 1975 Kar. 879 ; Macleod v. Wakley (1828) 3 C & P 311, ; Shama Overseas, (Private) Ltd., P L D 1962 S C 357 and Joynt v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co. (1904) 2 K B 292 ref. (b) Words and phrases‑ Mahasha‑Meaning. Ferozul Lughat `Urdu Jama`a, New Edn., 1964, p. 1181 ref. Kamal Azfar for Plaintiffs. Mushir Ahmed Pesh Imam for Defendants.