Section 329: Good faith defences to defamation

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 406/2567 (2024)

   Where the prosecution cannot prove defamatory intent, and the statement is an honest, fair comment on a matter of public concern of the kind ordinary people would make, it is protected under Section 329(3) and is not defamation.

   The complainant was a senior official. The Supreme Court held the court should not use the defendant's own evidence against him where the prosecution had not discharged its burden, and found the words a good-faith fair comment under Section 329(3), reversing the conviction and dismissing the case.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 321/2568 (2025)

   The Section 329(1) and (3) good-faith exemptions do not apply where the accused could have addressed the grievance through lawful legal process, and instead chose a public method of defamation.

   The defendant argued the public banners were good-faith fair comment and self-protection under Section 329(1) and (3). The Court rejected this because, if the defendant believed the complainant's conduct unlawful, lawful legal remedies were available.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 418/2567 (2024)

   Where the evidence shows an intent to expose the complainant to public shame rather than a genuine good-faith opinion for a legitimate purpose, the accused cannot rely on the Section 329(1) exemption.

   The Court found the defendant intended to publicly shame the plaintiff, which is an imputation likely to damage reputation, and rejected the claim of a good-faith opinion for a legitimate purpose under Section 329(1); the defamation conviction was upheld.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.