WHAT IS MANHANI?
Manhani simply means defamation of an individual person by any other person in order to malign the social image, status and reputation of the person.
The legal definition of Defamation has been provided in Section-499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which says—
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1— It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2 — It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3— An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
It can be seen in the recent case of Delhi Public School also known as DPS MMS Scandal.
Although it a case under PORNOGRAPHY but the character of the girl became objectionable which resulted to DEFAMATION of the girl.
The students (boys) who were involved in the sexual act and filming were both underage students of Delhi Public School, R.K Puram. As soon as the video clip went viral on the phones, an engineering student named Raviraj Singh was prosecuted for selling the video clip/ MMS allegedly to bazee.com. While the two producer- students were not accused of anything because they were minors and Raviraj Singh was thus acquitted because he had not made any sales through the video clip yet and in his possession of the clip could not be proved beyond certainty. The blame was then directed to Mr. Avinash Bajaj, the CEO of bazee
This occurrence caused a sudden panic across the nation over and numerous exchanges in regards to the insufficiency of the IT Act, 2000 and the need to alter it began. Additionally, after this outrage, attributable to debates around culpability, risk and prosecution of material on the web, a few key judgments were passed including forbidding the utilization of cell phones in school and school campuses crosswise over India.
Innuendo is a legal concept that is related to tort and personal injury law. The word is derivated from innuere, the Latin word that means the way to gesture forward. In legitimate terms, innuendo is utilized as a part of a claim to portray maligning from criticism or defamation. It, for the most part demonstrates that the offended party had terrible remarks made about him and that the remarks were in actuality, 'defamatory'.
The insinuation/ innuendo is generally utilized as a part of activities for defaming an individual. An innuendo can be just illustrative of some other issue communicated. It should likewise serve to apply the offered defamation to the point of reference matter, white not enlarging, extending, or changing the possibility of the past words. Innuendo normally alludes to a condition where a man clarifies a real circumstance, yet an off base interpretation is delivered from it.
Besides, the issue to which the innuendo suggests should dependably appear from the predecessor end of the prosecution or statement. This is required when the expectation can be mistaken, or when it can't be delivered from the defamation whether libel or slander itself.
In the event that the innuendo amplifies the possibility of the words, it can vitiate the arraignment or declaration. In any case, if the new issue expressed inside an innuendo does not have to help the activity, it can be dismissed as surplus.
There are two noteworthy kinds of innuendo. The first is false innuendo. It is a defamatory articulation made that has a suggested meaning, so the only people who have the essential logical information can acknowledge and comprehend that the remark is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
There is also legal innuendo. While this isn't defamatory all over, a lawful innuendo articulation can be defamatory when joined with certain outward or extrinsic conditions. This logical data may make an announcement be viewed as defamatory in a specific jurisdiction while not another.
When taking a look at legitimate point of reference, strict risk governed is connected to lawful innuendo. This is the standard level of risk/liability that indicates what makes an individual lawfully capable and responsible. Strict obligation requires forcing risk on a specific party without finding a purpose behind the fault or mishappening, for example, tortious intent or negligence. In this situation, the defendant must have been proved to be responsible and that the torn in question did happen.
V Subair vs. P.K. Sudhakaran, 6th February, 1987
Relying on Ram Namboodiri vs. Govindam, 1962 Ker: 1963 (1) Cri U 535, counsel for petitioner contends that the identity of the complainant should be established. The proposition is beyond reproach. But, it is not always necessary to name the person. In the event that the depiction and attendant conditions propose with reasonable assurance of the personality of the individual expected, that is adequate to draw in the offense. Explanation 3 to Section-499 states that an imputation as an option or articulation amusingly may likewise add up to slander. Slander/Defamation by Innuendo is notable. Hicks' case is illustrative in such manner. Gatley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition (para 281) states:
To succeed in an action of defamation it must not only be proved that the defendant published the words and that they are defamatory: He must also identify himself as the person defamed. No writing whatsoever is to be esteemed a libel unless it reflects upon some particular person: It is not necessary that the words should refer by name.