Defamation law and free speech
The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. This leaflet provides information about legal rights and options for action for people who may be threatened by a legal action or who are worried about something they want to say or publish.
The basic idea of defamation law is simple. It is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.
Types;
 There are two types of defamation.
* Oral defamation -- called slander -- for example comments or stories told at a meeting or party.
* Published defamation -- called libel -- for example a newspaper article or television broadcast. Pictures as well as words can be libellous.

HOWEVER THERE ARE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS

-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published.

-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever regarding the conduct or character of a public servant in discharge of his public function.

-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the conduct or character of any person touching any public question.

-It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report or result of a Court of Justice of anysuch proceedings.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any case, whichhas been decided by a Court of Justice, or the conduct of any person as a party, or the witness or the agent, in such case.

-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any performancewhich an author has submitted to the judgement of the public.

-It is not defamation if a person having any authority over another person, either conferred by lawor arising out of a lawful contract, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

-It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those whohave lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.

-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another person, provided it ismade in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.

-It is not defamation to convey a caution, intended for the good of a person to whom conveyed or for public good. Eg. A few yeas ago, former Union Law Minister & Senior Janata Party leader, called a senior BJP leader of a rival party ‘ignoramus’  and a Court summoned the offender for defamation. The alleged offender had to prove that the rival politician was really ignoramus, or would have to face the punitive measures (jail/fine). In contesting the case, the offender had to visit the law courts for at least 5 years and pay hefty money to the advocate.

. It is answerable in damages to the person against whom the act of defamation is committed. If a libel is published by a newspaper / media tends to incite a riot, that would be a criminal defamation punishable by the State for the protection of public safety & public good. Publication of obscene, seditious, blasphemous, words are punishable under the criminal  law of defamation.

 Media power and defamation
One of the best responses to defamatory comments is a careful rebuttal. If people who make defamatory comments are shown to have gotten their facts wrong, they will lose credibility. But this only works if people have roughly the same capacity to broadcast their views.
Only a few people own or manage a newspaper or television station. Therefore it is difficult to rebut prominent defamatory statements made in the mass media. Free speech is not much use in the face of media power. There are cases where people's reputations have been destroyed by media attacks. Defamation law doesn't provide a satisfactory remedy. Apologies are usually too late and too little to restore reputation, and monetary pay-outs do little for reputation.
Most media organisations avoid making retractions. Sometimes they will defend a defamation case and pay out lots of money rather than openly admit being wrong. Media owners have resisted law reforms that would require retractions of equal prominence to defamatory stories.
By contrast, if you are defamed on an electronic discussion group, it is quite easy to write a detailed refutation and send it to all concerned the next hour, day or week. Use of defamation law is ponderous and ineffectual compared to the ability to respond promptly. This suggests that promoting interactive systems of communication as an alternative to the mass media would help to overcome some of the problems associated with defamation.
CONCLUSION
Defamation law doesn't work well to protect reputations. It prevents the dialogue and debate necessary to seek the truth. More speech and more writing is the answer to the problem rather than defamation law, which discourages speech and writing and suppresses even information that probably wouldn't be found defamatory if it went to court. Published statements -- including libellous ones -- are open, available to be criticised and refuted. The worst part of defamation law is its chilling effect on free speech.
The most effective penalty for telling lies and untruths is loss of credibility. Systems of communication should be set up so that people take responsibility for their statements, have the opportunity to make corrections and apologies, and lose credibility if they are repeatedly exposed as untrustworthy. Defamation law, with its reliance on complex and costly court actions for a tiny fraction of cases, doesn't work.
Defamation actions and threats to sue for defamation are often used to try to silence those who criticise people with money and power. The law and the legal system need to be changed, but in the meantime, being aware of your rights and observing some simple guidelines can help you make informed choices about what to say and publish.
EXAMPLES
It seems safe to assume former Black Caps all-rounder Chris Cairns isn’t familiar with the adage that lawyers are the only winners in defamation cases. Cairns has spent the past few weeks in the High Court in London pursuing a libel action against an Indian businessman and cricketing entrepreneur who tweeted to the effect that the New Zealander’s abrupt departure in 2008 from the Indian Cricket League (ICL) team the Chandigarh Lions was because of his involvement in match fixing.
SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) Chairman Aslam Goni will file a defamation suit against his predecessor Mehboob Iqbal and three news channels claiming that they “falsely” linked him to the scam in the state’s cricket body.
“Goni is all set to file a defamation case against former JKCA Chairman and retried IAS officer Mehboob Iqbal and some media houses for unleashing a baseless and frivolous character assassination campaign against him,” counsels for the JKCA chairman said in a statement.
Advocates M A Bhat and Ahtsham Bhat have served legal notices to Iqbal and the news channels for directly linking Goni to money embezzlement scam in the JKCA.
“Goni was whistleblower in the scam and had detected it. It was Goni who lodged an FIR in Police to investigate the matter ... how can he be blamed as the culprit without any basis?” the counsels asked.
Goni is currently in South Africa as manager of the Indian cricket team for a one-off Twenty20 match