What is single publication rule for filing suit against defamatory material on the internet/facebook page?

In Khawar Butt (supra) this Court dealing with the period of limitation for filing a suit against defamatory material on the internet/facebook page held that the single publication rule was more pragmatic and appropriate. It was held:

"14. I first proceed on to determine the legal issue: Whether, the leaving of the allegedly defamatory material on the internet/facebook page gives rise to a fresh cause of action every moment the said offending material is so left on the webpage-which can be viewed by others at any time, or whether the cause of action arises only when the offending material is first posted on the webpage/internet.

38. I am of the view that the Single Publication Rule is more appropriate and pragmatic to apply, rather the Multiple Publication Rule. I find the reasoning adopted by the American Courts in this regard to be more appealing than the one adopted by the English Courts, prior to the amendment of the law by the introduction of the Defamation Act, 2013. It is the policy of the law of limitation to bar the remedy beyond the prescribed period. That legislative policy would stand defeated if the mere continued residing of the defamatory material or article on the website were to give a continuous cause of action to the plaintiff to sue for defamation/libel. Of course, if there is re-publication resorted to by the defendant-with a view to reach the different or larger section of the public in respect of the defamatory article or material, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action.

39. The alleged libelous posting on Facebook, as averred in the plaint, was posted on around 26.10.2008, 27.10.2008 and even the booklet containing the allegedly defamatory material concerning the plaintiff is said to have been circulated around 25.12.2008. In view of the same, the limitation period for the suit expired on 25.12.2009.

40. Since the suit to claim damages for libel has not been filed within the period of limitation of one year from the date when the cause of action arose, i.e. when the libel was published, the said claim is barred by limitation."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 21/2017

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Ajai Agarwal Vs.  IBNI8 Media & Software Limited and Ors.

Print Page

When should the court not reject plaint filed for recovery of compensation for libel and mental agony on the ground of limitation?

If the present suit was an action simpliciter for compensation for libel, the same was required to be filed within one year when the libel was published and as noted by this Court in the case of Khawar Butt (supra), single publication rule is more applicable and pragmatic in which case, the present suit had to be filed when the slanderous telecast was shown by defendant No. 1 on 29th July, 2006. However, in the present suit, the plaintiff claims a decree of exemplary or punitive damages in favour of the plaintiff on account of the mental agony, torture, humiliation and hatred suffered by the plaintiff and his family and a decree for loss of reputation and goodwill. As per the plaintiff, the cause of action though started accruing in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on 29th July, 2006 when the first telecast was made, however, it continued when it received notices from various authorities including the Medical Council, Police etc as also when the writ petitions were filed and dismissed by this Court and the Allahabad High Court. From the pleadings/claims of the plaintiff in paragraph 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the plaint, it is not the mere publication of libel but thereafter also the continuous course of action which resulted in mental agony, harassment to the plaintiff on which count the plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages. Since the period of limitation for such a claim in the suit would be governed by residuary clause i.e. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which provides for a period of three years limitation from the time when the right to sue accrues and as per the plaintiff right to sue still subsists and as the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to be decided based on the averments in the plaint which have to be accepted by way of demurer, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. It is however clarified that since in the present case, the issue of limitation would be a mixed question of fact and law, the same would be decided after the parties have led their respective evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 21/2017

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Ajai Agarwal Vs.  IBNI8 Media & Software Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mukta Gupta, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1113/2020

Print Page