Justification of Truth

The justification of truth is a recognised defence in the law of defamation, which permits a defendant to escape liability if the defamatory statement made about the plaintiff is substantially true. The principle rests on the foundation that the law does not protect a person’s reputation from statements that are true, however unpleasant or damaging they may be. This doctrine upholds the societal interest in truth and fair comment while balancing individual rights to reputation.

Concept and Meaning

Defamation, in its simplest form, is the publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. The tort and criminal law of defamation protect individuals from false imputations, not from true ones. Hence, if the defendant proves that the statement complained of is true in substance and in fact, he is justified, and no action for defamation can succeed.
The justification of truth operates on the maxim “Veritas convicii excusat”, meaning the truth of the accusation is an excuse for the charge. The rationale is that the law will not punish a person for making a true statement about another, even if it exposes the person to public hatred or ridicule.

Legal Foundation

In English law, the defence of truth has long been recognised under the term “justification”. The Defamation Act 1952 (UK) replaced the expression “justification” with the more modern term “truth”, which was later reaffirmed in the Defamation Act 2013 (UK). Section 2 of the 2013 Act provides that it is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the statement complained of is substantially true.
In India, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines defamation, and Exception 1 to that section provides that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it is made for the public good. Thus, Indian law combines the requirement of truth with the additional condition of public benefit, making the defence narrower than in English law.

Essentials of the Defence

To successfully claim the defence of justification of truth, the following essentials must be satisfied:

1. The Statement Must Be True in Substance: The truth need not be proved in every detail; it is sufficient if the gist or sting of the statement is true. Minor inaccuracies do not defeat the defence if the main allegation is substantially correct.
2. Burden of Proof Lies on the Defendant: The defendant must prove the truth of the statement. Unlike ordinary civil suits, in defamation cases, once the plaintiff shows that the statement is defamatory, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify it as true.
3. Public Good (in Indian Law): Under Indian law, even if the statement is true, it must also be shown that its publication was for the public good. This requirement ensures that private or unnecessary exposure of true facts is not justified merely by their accuracy.
4. Truth at the Time of Publication: The statement must have been true at the time of its publication, not merely discovered to be true later.

Judicial Interpretation

The doctrine has been elaborated in several judicial decisions across jurisdictions.

• In Alexander v. North Eastern Railway Co. (1865), the defendants published that the plaintiff had been convicted of travelling without a ticket. Though the punishment stated was slightly incorrect, the substance of the charge was true. The court held that substantial truth suffices, even if some details are inaccurate.
• In Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath (1983), the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that in India, truth alone is not a complete defence; the statement must also serve the public good to qualify under Exception 1 of Section 499 IPC.
• In Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia (1981), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that the question of public good is a matter of fact to be determined by the court, depending on the circumstances of each case.
• In Chandrakant Khaire v. Sharad Pawar (2001), the Court reiterated that substantial truth is a valid defence to defamation, provided that the publication was made in good faith and for the public interest.

Distinction between Truth and Fair Comment

While truth and fair comment both serve as defences in defamation, they differ in nature and scope:

• Truth concerns statements of fact. The defendant asserts that the alleged defamatory facts are true.
• Fair comment concerns statements of opinion. The defendant argues that the comments made were opinions based on true facts and within the bounds of fairness.

Thus, truth deals with factual accuracy, whereas fair comment deals with the freedom to express opinions on true or privileged facts.

Public Good and Its Relevance

The requirement of public good plays a central role in Indian law. Even if the statement is true, the court will consider whether publishing it benefits the community or serves a legitimate public interest.
For example, exposing corruption by a public official, even if damaging to his reputation, would be considered in the public good. Conversely, publishing true details of a person’s private life with no relevance to public interest would not qualify for the defence.
The determination of public good depends on the following factors:

• The status of the person defamed (public or private figure).
• The nature of the information published.
• The intent behind the publication.
• The extent to which public interest is served by disclosure.

Partial or Incomplete Truth

Where a publication contains multiple allegations, some true and some false, the defence of truth will only succeed if the false statements do not materially add to the injury caused. The Defamation Act 2013 (UK) expressly recognises this, stating that if one or more of the imputations are substantially true, and the rest do not seriously harm the plaintiff’s reputation, the defence remains valid.
However, if the false portions intensify the defamatory sting, the defence fails. Courts therefore focus on whether the inaccuracies materially change the impact of the publication.

Limitations of the Defence

Although the justification of truth is a powerful defence, it is not without limitations:

• Burden of Proof: The defendant carries the full burden of proving the truth, which can be difficult, especially when evidence is limited or outdated.
• Private Matters: Truthful statements about private life that do not serve public interest may still amount to defamation in India.
• Malicious Intent: While malice does not defeat truth, it may affect the credibility of the defence, especially where public good is in question.
• Changing Circumstances: A statement true at one time may become false later; its justification depends on the facts existing at the time of publication.

Significance in Media and Public Discourse

The justification of truth is particularly significant in journalism, politics, and public communication. It protects media outlets and individuals who publish accurate information about public figures, wrongdoing, or matters of societal concern. At the same time, it encourages responsibility by ensuring that truth is verifiable and published in the public interest.
The defence thereby maintains a delicate balance between two competing values — the right to reputation and the right to freedom of expression. Modern jurisprudence seeks to protect genuine public interest reporting while preventing the misuse of truth for sensationalism or personal vendetta.