 Good evening friends. On a weekend, once you have knowledge sharing by a person like Geetalutra, a senior advocate, additional advocate General Haryana and one who has taken our sessions when we were beyond law CLC, we were in the baby steps of that. And her session on the land acquisition during even during the baby steps have taken the giant steps in this regard. And though we were connecting with Ma'am Geetalutra time and again, but as they say, things only take when they are just trying to be. And we normally take sessions which are challenging and you have to juxtapose different aspects. Therefore, we thought why not take a session on a criminal defamation vis-a-vis civil defamation. This aspect normally off late, we have seen that there are a lot of allegations, counter allegations, a lot of threats, otherwise also to the effect that you can be taken to the court for the defamation cause. What are the positions where they are taken together and what are the facets where there are certain restrictions to be taken. In this regard, the today's legal knowledge sharing by Ma'am Geetalutra would be giving her insights. So do stay connected with us. Those who have missed a previous webinar, they can always stay connected with us by liking, sharing and subscribing to the Beyond Law CLC channels. Take it to the peak of more than 500 webinars which we have taken across. Being a weekend, we will not take much time to request Ma'am to share her knowledge. Oh, do you, Ma'am? Thank you. Thank you. It's actually a very interesting subject in today's time when criminal defamation has withstood the constitutionality test when Justice Deepak Mishra in fact adjudicated upon the issue. And it was very interesting that Justice Mishra, the Chief Justice of India, in fact felt at the outset that criminal defamation should actually be abolished and that it's been abolished in several countries. So why is it continuing in India? But then, while he heard arguments and the case is entitled Subramaniam Swami because it was a case filed by Subramaniam Swami in the case where he had made allegations against Jai Lalitha and there were two very interesting cases which arose from that. But what I am saying is that the constitutionality test, even though initially in the first blush Justice Deepak Mishra had felt that he would probably strike it down after hearing detailed arguments and after reviewing the law and seeing that is civil defamation enough, the Court felt, the Chiefs Court, Court No. 1 felt that no constitutionality test has been, it will withstand a challenge to its constitutionality and criminal defamation should remain on the statute book. There are many reasons for it and I think the reasons are, in fact, particular to India where a woman's are made by one leader against another, by one person against a public figure, whoever that public figure may be against actors, against politicians, against and sometimes even by journalists, very frequently by journalists and therefore it was felt that while civil defamation which is a torturous liability should continue, it was not an efficacious enough remedy and criminal defamation must continue to be on the statute under Section 499 and 500 of the IPC. I begin this with a quote from Bhagwat Gita which says, Men will recount thy perpetual dishonor and to one highly esteemed dishonor exceeded death. So what is significant is that your reputation is so important and integral to you that even life itself may be less important than the ignonomy of being defamed. And so coming back to the Constitution Ben judgment, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Deepak Varma said, the limitations cannot be allowed to be solid on the anvil of free speech as free speech is not absolute. Right to life and freedom of speech have to be mutually respected. So let's look at this. You have on one hand article 19 which has shows you freedom of speech and expression. And you know how important it is for every democracy that truth should emerge. How important it is for every democracy to have every opinion, whether it be in the political sphere, whether it be in a Dharma sphere which has become important these days and is being discussed because of COVID having taken the whole world by storm. The fact is that truth and opinion must emerge. And it should be tested on an anvil where a person may be able to say what he would want. Now, it reminds me of a very recent notice by the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition where someone has asked for damages for the one of the COVID vaccines not being appropriate and having caused illness, oblique death. So look at it from this perspective, you want every viewpoint to be tested on the anvil of arguments of counter arguments and then to have truth emerge. So that's article 19, which is fundamental to the constitution of India to our fundamental rights is in on one hand, what is very important. On the other hand, it is important also that a person's reputation be not mismatched. And for that, you have article 21, which is your right of life. If I don't have my reputation, if I don't have my respect, if I don't have the name that I have taken years of toil and hard work to create. If I don't, for example, you are known for your honesty, or you stand by your honesty and integrity, you stand by the fact that you are not a thief. Then if that is solid question is, is your not your very right of life under article 21 bought into this repute. And that's why you have to look. There are two aspects of it. There is right to on right to one's reputation, but there is also a right of freedom of speech and expression and right to one's reputation has precedence over the right to freedom of speech and expression. One cannot say anything without thinking what are the repercussions on the person against whom these allegations are being made. And that's what is fundamental with regard to deformation, whether it be civil or criminal. Of course, we'll go into the distinction in a minute between civil and criminal deformation and whether both can coexist, whether both can be filed or should not be filed. And if you see some of the most significant recent cases over the last 10 years, you would see cases of deformation between file between Mr. Gadkare, who was a minister, who is a minister and Mr. Arvind Kejriwal. The Chief Minister of Delhi, you have cases between Subramaniam Swami and Ram Jait Malani, which is one of the salient judgments on civil deformation. You have cases where Mr. Arun Jaitli had filed where the issue of civil versus criminal deformation came up. You have cases where Mr. Subramaniam Swami made allegations and you have the entire field of international law where there has been have been cases of deformation, civil and criminal. The emphasis over the years now in the US and in the UK has been on civil deformation. But the fact is that in those countries, your torturous liability is highly developed and the torturous liability results in huge damages, which in India it does not. And that is why when you look at deformation, you have to see how quick is the remedy. There is no point by succeeding in a civil deformation case after 20 years when the person is almost dead and buried. The relief and the remedy has to be soon. The delay in any remedy of this nature makes it almost infractuous and not worthwhile. There is no point filing a petition if you are not able to at least get redressal in a court of law. And that's why criminal deformation, one of the reasons why criminal deformation has been allowed to continue on the statute book. I begin with the court from the book from the judgment of Subramaniam Swami versus Union of India where there are paras and paras which are devoted to the fact that it is the most fundamental of rights and it is the right which cannot book any delay. So, one of the aspects that would come out is a citation which I will give, which is where the courts justice Deepak Mishra's judgment says that criminal deformation is one case where you will get redressal, it notes the arguments of various learned councils and then finally comes to this finding that we cannot not have the criminal deformation in the statute book. Now, very recently, we've had some very interesting cases and I will come to the various exceptions of criminal deformation in a bit because that would make it just only simply very technical. One, we must remember that criminal deformation is a deformation made of a person or a class of persons by a person who will be an aggrieved person. And so, in the course of today's talk, I will define what is an aggrieved person. It is made against a class or against a person. It can be through an innuendo. So, what is an innuendo and what should be the effect? The effect should be it lowers the reputation of that person in the eyes of right thinking members of society. And who would be considered a right thinking member of society that has been said very beautifully by a judgment of the by Lord Reid in England in Lewis versus Daily Telegraph. And I'm going to quote you a para which I think is pertinent. He says it repeatedly in that judgment. It's one of the parent judgments which even Indian courts have cited. There is no doubt that in actions for libel and the difference is there are two actions in criminal deformation libel and slander. Now libel is the written word slander is the oral word both cause the same amount of damage. There is no doubt that in actions for libel. The question is what the words will convey to the ordinary man. It is not one of construction in the legal sense. The ordinary man does not live in an ivory town. He is not inhibited by knowledge of the rules of construction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. A man who wants to talk at large about smoke may have to pick his words very carefully. If he wants to exclude the suggestion that there is also a fire but it can be done. What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary of the words but that expression is misleading in what it conceals the fact that there are two elements it is in it. Now the question arose was that a person said this person is a scoundrel and he may it went on he is also he's a scoundrel he's bad etc. generic words and he is also a thief. So the question was did thief being per se defamatory does thief relate back to generic words he is a thief so do you mean he is actually a thief or are you just doing a passing of a very bland statement. So the court said the court came down and said when you say he's also a thief that word is per se defamatory. And in it was further in the same context one other sentence which was used ordinary men and women have different temperament and outlooks. Some are unusually suspicious. Some are unusually naive. One must try to envisage people between these two extremes and see what is most damaging meaning that they put to the words in question. So we have to see the rational common man. We can't see somebody who's extremely suspicious. We can't see somebody who is not. Now you have one of the essential ingredients in defamation or a complaint of defamation. It's important to note that defamation is non-cognizable and it is available. One of the aspects which is most important is it has lowered the my reputation or the reputation of the person who is agreed by it in the eyes of right thinking members of society. So you would normally need one or two right thinking members of society who would come and say that the reputation has been lowered in our eyes. Very recently in fact I was doing one matter of an MNC of a who is based out of the US where this aspect came up and this averment was missing. And the court held that criminal defamation cannot be made without this essential ingredient of showing that in the eyes of right thinking members of society, the reputation of the person has been lowered. So this is part of explanation for and is very important aspect and I'll perhaps share with you a judgment if time permits on this. Now who can find the complaint. Let's look at who can file a complaint and a grieved person can file a complaint and a grieved person can even be a company that has a reputation. Now how does who can be an agreed person. A grieved person is a person who may whose reputation may be solid. Suppose it is a but he has to still prove that he is an agreed person. Even if it is about the reputation of a person that person is under a duty to show that he is an agreed person that he is harmed or it has resulted in harm to him. So he has to be an agreed person. Very recently, in fact, two cases come to my mind. And advocate filed a petition in one of the trial courts before the magistrate in Delhi and he said that the person who had made allegations against him in business standard where it were not against him against him. RSS in general had said that various things which were unpalatable and the exact words which were used was that members of RSS are oppressive to Indian mentally disturbed disrespectful respectful of the Indian national symbols, etc. Now the person who was the complainant was not being able to show that he was the agreed person. So a statement was made that he was agreed because he was a member of RSS but he did not bring any evidence for it to show. So and various allegations made by him and complain filed by him was held to be not maintainable by a single judge of the Delhi court. Saying that this is an advocate who has filed the complaint and this advocate has no look at standard because he's not been able to prove or establish that he's an agreed person. Because in similar facts, if you recall, a very recent movie that has come has been shown called Gangubhai that in that movie, a person claiming to be the adoptive son of Gangubhai claimed that that the movie was even though Gangubhai had was deceased, that being an adopted son, he was hurt and it was a defamatory of his adoptive mother because he said on whose life they had said that she'd been a prostitute, etc. and all those aspects came up. Several councils, there was a barrage of lawyers for the filmmakers and the film was sought to be banned. And Bombay High Court had refused the reliefs of any interim relief. The film was based and has been a very famous film on the mafia queens based on the book The Mafia Queens of Bombay. The court speaking through Justice Indra Banerjee and Justice Deke Maheshwari said that he has not been able to show that he's an agreed person. There was an argument made that perhaps she would have wanted all this to come out. In any case, he had no locus and he was not an agreed person. He couldn't show that he was the adopted son and in any case it was done as an artist to show a story in terms of a film and he did not succeed in the Supreme Court. So this is one aspect that a person has to be able to show that he's an agreed person under section 198 and some of the judgments on this aspect are these judgments. Now coming to various interesting and perhaps anecdotal cases. I would first want to tell you the difference and what the Delhi High Court said about civil deformation and criminal deformation in the case of Mr. Arun Jaitley. Where both civil deformation and criminal deformation were filed. In that he was one of the union ministers if you recall and a very popular union minister at that. And what was held was that a civil suit filed by the respondent and the criminal complaint were based on the same facts and the criminal proceedings could possibly be stayed under 392 on that ground. Then and that he both continued simultaneously and there one judgment would be by a civil court and another judge judgment by a magistrate and therefore the reliance was placed on a judgment. Again called Radhe Shyam Kejriwal which is a well known judgment on this that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than in a civil case and the court held with the petitioners but in that case finally an apology was given and the matter was closed. What is innuendo and innuendo is when you don't say something directly but you know that it is it is targeting a particular individual. How do you target that individual and how do you do an innuendo against an individual who you don't name but you make it abundantly clear. That for example I am talking about someone who takes care of the government. Ex portfolio but whom I am not going to name or you say something defining something an actor or actress a role that they may have played where you understand that this is the role of the ex film by ex actor or ex actress and therefore you know that that innuendo is targeting ex but it doesn't name it that is an innuendo and innuendo is as dangerous and as liable under civil and criminal defamation as is a direct statement blaming the person. Now there are some things having said defined innuendo I want to say there are some things which are per se defamatory it is the same example for example where somebody said so you are a thief. It is per se defamatory you don't there is a presumption unless the person can come within an exception. And in criminal law for example. It is not enough that it is the truth, it also has to be for public good and in good faith and I will show the definition of. criminal defamation defamation and the exceptions to illustrate this point but speaking on per se defamation suppose you say a person is a goon down a person is a rapist. These are per se defamatory and on this aspect of saying goon down the matter was tested in a court of law and the court has held in the Indian context that calling a person per se goon down is by itself. Defamatory and per se defamatory I just come back to the exceptions now I want to just say this. What if you say that I have only repeated what Johnny said or what Tom said or what. Is that defamation or will it be a defense to say I am only published whatever Tommy said. In. Yes, I did report it in my newspaper, but I only copied newspaper, which is a national journal which had said it, so I am mine is just a good fit. The courts have held sorry, this is not permissible because repeating without verifying and without a certain name is as harmful as dangerous as punitive as saying it in the first place. And there is a extremely well known judgment on this issue. Now, coming to the definition of defamation criminal defamation because that's what will be relevant when people take a defense. And normally it is for the prosecution to prove its case. So, in every case, it is for the prosecution the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But in defamation, the moment the prosecution that is the complainant in defamation cases is able to establish there is a prime of a side ground where someone's been called dishonest or any imputation, whether immoral or in human or violent or doing acts of domestic violence, doing acts of sexual abuse, doing acts of domestic abuse is made. It's per se defamatory that person has discharged his owners, then the owner switches on the accused and that there are several judgments that the owners is on the accused. I believe some of them are Chamanlal, Harbhajan, etc. They are lead judgments on this issue, but I would not be fair if I do not read to you the definition of criminal defamation as provided under 499. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said except in cases herein after accepted to defame that person. I have already given you an example of explanation for and what is required that you have to show that it has lowered the reputation or the esteem of that person in the eyes of right thinking members of society. But what I want you to look at is perhaps first exception, ninth exception and 10th exception for which I will have to read those out to you. Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. It is not defamation to impute anything which is true if it be for the public good. So truth alone is not enough. Truth has to be accompanied be public good. And in this I will refer to the case of the famous RK Karanjia. I will just come to it where the Blitz published a piece and I'll just come to it. Now I just want you to look at the other two except the exceptions which I believe are very important. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection or his or others interest. It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for public good. So you have to explain how was their good faith, how was their public good. And the last 10th exception caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good. It is not the defamation to convey a caution in good faith to one person against another provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some person in whom that person is interested or the public good. Now, these are important exceptions. The test is very vigorous and the test has to be satisfied by the accused by showing that what the accused has said is for public good. There is an important aspect to it and that is limitation. The test of limitation is very important. It cannot be that you may make allegations at any period of time. So limitation buys as such in terms of the offence itself cannot permit making allegations which are jaded or which have lost time because ultimately the person who makes those allegations has to make sure that the other that he can prove those allegations and with time you can prove those allegations and therefore in so far as the person who files defamation he has also to ensure that he files or she files their complaint forthwith soon so that it is both so that there is evidence. Now, I would not be, I would be remiss if I don't give you certain interesting cases before I close but before I do that I want to refer to a line an aspect that has come up which is the Me Too movement. The Me Too movement which came up with regard to Winstime took the world by storm and many people came and made complaints and allegations. And those complaints and allegations were made in social media without any evidence with regard to alleged allegations which were absolutely still I'm not talking of truth or untruth but if you have to do a fair trial there has to be a time bound complaint, a time bound allegation and we are living in the world of social media. So talking about civil defamation, talking about criminal defamation, I would be totally remiss if I don't say that social media will have to be cautious and should be cautious in what they state which may be a casual statement which may take fire from one to another and sully and harm the reputation of a person who has built it over the years. And it is in today's day that we have to be very careful how we repeat what another person has said every person who repeats an act is equally liable as the person who initiates as was said in that famous case of Lewis. You may be saying there's smoke but are you saying there's a fire, otherwise if there is a presumption there's a fire you will be liable for defamation. That is the test and that test has to be looked at very carefully. Now some, I first go to the Karanjaya case and that what had happened was that there was a lady called I think Mrs. Shukla who during emergency was jailed and while she was jailed and came out after she came out, her article came out in the blitz that she had become pregnant with one of the other people who was in jail at the same time trying to show her immorality as well as the other person's immorality. And a case was filed which is a well-known case where which was lost by Mr. R. K. Karanjaya because it was not a statement made for public good or made necessarily in good faith. It was just gossip and it was harming two people's reputation and life. So I was referring to this in also the context that journalists may believe that in order to arrive at the truth, they need investigative journalism. They can make any statements and the statements may not be supported with hard facts by merely saying we have a source. Now source does not need to be disclosed except when the court wants to test it in a defamation case. But ultimately it has to be a solid source. You cannot sully a person's reputation in the name of investigative journalism. And the Supreme Court in several judgments, in Pune, Silver State of Maharashtra, the Delhi High Court, in India's daughter, all these have held that when a matter is subject to this, please just report what is happening in the matter and don't convict the person in the eyes of the public even before he is convicted in a court of law. Public opinion, newspaper opinion does affect and therefore does have an effect on the minds of those who are deciding and on the minds of the public and may not be fair to the person. Now, since I have a paucity of time, I wanted to give two, three interesting examples and cases. One was a very recent case which I thought was very interesting. A Johnny Depp and against her and what had happened in that case was that she filed a case against him on the ground of domestic violence or she complained. Sorry, she didn't file a case. She just made an a vermin and a vermin that he'd been guilty of domestic violence and he filed a defamation case. In the meantime, the council said, his council also said something and she filed a case against him, but she was unable to prove her allegations which were made only in the public sphere and in the social sphere. And Mr. Depp was given $15 million as compensation and punitive damages. She herself, Amber was given $2 million in damages by the jury. In the interesting case, we hear all the time of match fixing, and you know that in India there have been these cases which went on in courts of law with regard to match fixing. One of the interesting cases was by a cricketer who was accused by Lalit Modi to match fix in the IPL Chris Cairns, and in that case, the court held him liable when he sued for defamation. When sued Lalit Modi, he was damages were awarded if I recall correctly to 90,000 pounds and it was said that such a statement was unwarranted. Similarly, several courts have held in cases pertaining to defamation with interesting judgments of Indian courts, of US courts, of the UK courts. Let's in 1988, Hustler magazine, there was a parody advertisement that a person Jerry Falwell was having doing an incestuous act with his mother. Now, that couldn't be proved, Falwell became entitled, did not get entitled to damages, because the court said who is going to believe, ultimately it should lower your reputation in the eyes of right thinking persons. Such a parody will not be believed, it's outrageous, it's absurd and nobody is going to look at this. So having said all this, I want to just end where I should have actually begun, which is that India, India inherited this from Great Britain. And it came as a result under the Indian Penal Code in 1860. In England itself, it was, there was a slander of women act, and even at that time, where the Romans and Germans actually said that use of abusive persons against anyone would be punished with death, capital punishment. And in so far as the UK was concerned, it said that the tongue of the person making such a statement should be cut off. So defamation is a very real remedy. Civil defamation, the torturous liability has to be made stronger, has to be made more meaningful, has to become faster, quicker, because by the time it's decided, it is so late that people feel it was not worth their time to be litigating and to be getting their respect and reputation restored by a proof in a court of law. Criminal defamation also takes a lot of time, but however, it is still a quicker remedy. We have to ensure that both remedies continue and that the right of a person to his reputation remains sacrosanct and not to be touched or not to be interfered with on the drop of a hat, because it should have penal consequences. It should have far reaching tortures, civil and criminal consequences should have injunctions, which should then result ultimately in the trial and finalization. Many political sensitive defamatory cases of defamation actually get settled out of court after a period of time. But the fact is that they do harm. The harm to a reputation may have already been done and that's what we have to protect against. The law has gone far with KS Putuswamy speaking about the right to privacy. It has gone even further steps to ensure that there is a doctrine of proportionality and we have to ensure that the remedy is quick and immediate. Thank you. You would be taking the questions which are posted on the YouTube end. I'll just, I can easily take for about 15 minutes. So I'll do that. This is by Prithpan. It says, though you have explained an extent, so what is the difference between civil defamation and criminal defamation and how it can be related once you file an SLP? So the SLP is ultimately a consequence. Civil defamation you will file a remedy or you will ask for relief in a civil court depending on the pecuniary jurisdiction. And it's really a tortious right. A right in tort. The criminal defamation is a right in statute under 499 and 500. In many senses it's got a stricter test because for the accused, because they have to not only show the truth, but they have also to show that it was for public good or in good faith. And for, for in terms of the exceptions under one, from one to 10, but one, nine and 10 being more relevant. Can you explain in your though, slightly more details. Sorry. Can you explain it in more details in window. So the way to describe an in window is suppose you have an advertisement. Say on a billboard, which is not saying iPhone or is not saying Samsung, but is giving the features so that you know who the they are talking about. And they is talking about it's in a light, which is defamatory or which is making imputations. What are the imputations that harm one or a company that they for a company it will be that there's dishonesty. Their product is an act of cheating that etc etc see normal, whatever maybe disputes between two conglomerates fighting with each other, they will go to the company side. But if they are defamatory without naming who it is, I mean name my political opponent without naming him, I may bring out the fact that so and so member of parliament who is so and so who has has who has this matter pending against him or who has made an utterance with regard to without any foundation. You know that who is it he talking about. Because you've heard the utterance. So those are in windows and in window is equally in terms of explanation also and even in terms of law as Britain had developed it in window is as as a long and offense or a act which is a torches liability as and a direct statement against a person. Can you explain the qualified privilege and respect of statements paid in judicial proceedings. I think the first time that I saw that the court said even what is said in proceedings. Maybe subject matter of defamation was in this judgment between Ramchit Malani and I think Subramaniam Swami by the Delhi High Court. Otherwise, I've never noticed that in fact codes have normally held that what is a pleading is only for the parties and therefore it doesn't amount to defamation because you're not putting it out there for the public to read. It is in a private domain. There is there are some law on this that if you make, for example, all right, let's take one day. A person makes a defamatory statement at the time of final arguments will it be repeated at his instance at the time of cross examination in open court is it repeated as it at his instance. So the per se, most judgments say pleadings do not result in defamation. But if you use an utterance, repeat it in a court, then it will be defamatory and in criminal defamation criminal complaint cases, there is a little bit of jurisprudence that is developing that even what is said in those is definitely this question, it says what is the remedy available in false patrimonial cases where the whole family is solid in front of the society. So it depends you can if it's a criminal case, then you can file a malicious prosecution. If it is a statement made in a pleading. Once you are able for example, take a example, you do a 498 take case, and you bring in 10 members of the family, the police drop it out of the 10 accused. Those eight accused can actually go for malicious prosecution. They can also go for defamation. So they can either file under 182 or otherwise. What do you do in false cases, this is a very complex question because you can go for perjury, but our courts are very weak on perjury. And this actually encourages people to see whatever they want. You will never see such a responsible statements unsubstantiated coming in so easily. I can't say they're not coming, but so easily in some of the courts, other courts like the UK or US, because you know you have to make good your statement. Otherwise, you will be live responsible for all the costs of the proceeding and you will get. You could get perjury, but here perjury is is because the courts are burdened. They normally just dispose perjury saying, let it be. But I don't think that's right. I've been seeing this from husband side or wife side and or relative side and I feel that and that the courts will have to get to the bottom of the truth, whether they examine someone under order 10 and come to the truth that day only because over time people can embellish their stories. Something should be done. It says what is the limitation for the malicious prosecution. I think it's one year 182. I think it's one year. I'm not sure it's one or two years. Whether the news published in the newspaper based on FIR, can it be concluded as a defamatory statement? If it's really reporting the FIR, it's not defamatory. The courts have repeatedly held unsubstantiated allegations can be a ground of matrimonial breakup in the sense of cruelty, but an FIR till you is a first information report. Unfortunately, I can't say Lalitha Kumari is there that the moment you make a complaint, FIRs to be done registered. And so normally in matrimonial cases, there is some preliminary investigation, but all the women cells will always register FIR, whether it's true or it's false, whether the investigation relieves it's motivated or not motivated. They may drop some people, but they will, you know, people are adding relatives, they are acting friends, they are adding colleagues and unfortunately our system doesn't do anything. I think a stitch in time saves nine. If we start doing something about it, next person will be careful, but it also means one has to go an extra mile, but you can't do anything. Honestly speaking, if an FIR, a true version of the FIR is reported without embellishments or additions or a story. These were all the questions. The last question is whether civil defamation case or criminal case is advisable. And I had more or it can be both. What is your take on that? So after the Arun Jaitley case, I think what seems to be more advisable is that I, unless somebody is keen on getting damages because their cases, I think in Ramchit Malani's case, he, there was only a request for one rupee because he wanted token. So where a person really wants deterrence by on a person who is wealthy and who has made absurd statements and you want to hold him to responsibility, I would do civil defamation. Otherwise, criminal defamation is normally much, much faster. And therefore, in that sense, it's the quicker and better remedy. Sharing your knowledge and with the pleasure connecting. That was the last question. And everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And tomorrow, friends, our session would be. Thank you so much. Developing Advocacy Skills in the arbitration by Mr. Dutton Kasing, who is a senior advocate and a famous construction arbitration lawyer. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6pm. And thank you ma'am once again for sharing your insights. Thank you. Thank you.