Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    November 7, 2013
  • Outcome
    Inadmissible, Dismissed
  • Case Number
    CS(OS) 290/2010
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Websites, Social Media, Facebook, Internet, On-line Expression

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Delhi High Court adopted a single publication rule in reviewing a case about a defamatory comment posted on Facebook. The appeal was brought by Khawar Butt, the plaintiff, who instituted the suit to claim damages and a mandatory injunction against Asif Nazir Mir and others for defamation. Butt argued that the publication of the post on Facebook gave rise to a continuous cause of action because it amounted to a fresh publication every time the allegedly defamatory content remained on the website. The Court found that if presence of alleged defamatory material on a website would suffice to give a continuous cause of action, then the purpose of the law of limitation would be defeated.


Facts

Khawar Butt, the plaintiff, instituted the suit to claim damages and a mandatory injunction against Asif Nazir Mir and others for defamation. Butt alleged that they published libelous content on a pamphlet and on Facebook about his being in an illicit relationship with Mir’s wife. The Facebook content was posted on either October 25, 2008, or October 27, 2008. The pamphlet was allegedly published on December 25, 2008. The suit was brought on February 11, 2010.

The issue is whether the suit is barred by limitation. According to Entry 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period in a suit to claim compensation for libel is one year from the date of publication of the libel. Butt argued that publication of the post on Facebook gave rise to a continuous cause of action because it amounted to a fresh publication every time the allegedly defamatory content remained on the website. He argued that this is warranted because of the unique nature of online content, where publication can be voluntarily withdrawn any time, unlike print media.


Decision Overview

Vipin, Sanghi, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court examined the two rules regarding limitation in defamation cases: the multiple publication rule (every time the allegedly defamatory material is published or republished, it creates a discrete actionable defamatory statement upon which one can sue) and the single publication rule (the limitation period begins at the time of the first publication of the allegedly defamatory material, even if content remains online or copies continue to be sold later). The Court noted that the U.K. (until recently), Australia, Canada, and Germany follow the multiple publication rule. On the other hand, the U.K. (present law), United States, and France follow the single publication rule.

The Court ruled in favor of adoption of the single publication rule because it is more appropriate and pragmatic. The law of limitation aims to bar the remedy beyond the prescribed period. If mere presence of alleged defamatory material on the website would suffice to give a continuous cause of action, then this policy behind the law of limitation would be defeated. However, if there is republication of the material, with a view to reach a different or larger public audience, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action.

Based on the facts of this case and application of the law of limitation, the limitation period for this suit expired on December 25, 2009. Butt filed the suit after this period. Therefore, limitation barred the suit.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This is the first case to decide on the applicability of single or multiple publication rule in India. By deciding in favor of the single publication rule, it prevents the threat of a defamation action that may be filed almost indefinitely.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECtHR, Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03 (2009)

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.K., Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, [1849] 14 Q.B. 185
  • U.K., Godfrey v. Dermon Internet Ltd., [2001] Q.B. 201
  • Austl., Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56
  • U.K., Berezovsky v. Michaels, [2001] W.L.R. 104
  • U.K., Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2002] Q.B. 783
  • Can., Carter v. B.C. Fed'n of Foster Parents Ass'n, [2005] B.C.A. 398
  • Can., Ontario v. Toronto Life Publ'g Co., [2013] O.N.C.A. 405
  • Ir., Defamation Act (2009)

    Section 38(1)(b).

  • U.K., Defamation Act (2013)

    Section 8.

  • U.S., Wolfson v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 279 N.Y. 716 (1939)
  • U.S., Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 81 N.E.2d 45 (N.Y. 1948)
  • U.S., Restatement (Second) of Torts (1952)

    § 577A.

  • U.S., N.Y., Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463 (2002)
  • U.S., Churchill v. State, 876 A.2d 311 (App. Div. 2005)
  • U.S., Solomon v. Gannett Co., No. A-6160-11T4 (App. Div. June 26, 2013)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

High Court decisions are binding on courts within the jurisdiction of that High Court.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback