critcism when compared with defamation

criticism is necessary in order for people to do some soul searching and mend ways in any sphere of activity or walk of life.however criticism should not be for the sake of criticism but based on reasoning and rationalism also with a sense of conscientiousness. film critics these days effortlessly cast aspersions on creative works and works of fiction without having discerned the finer niceties of someone's brainchild. common man who is disgruntled with the political apparatus keeps grumbling and criticising out of sheer cynicism relating to politicians and pessimism of the entire polity.people who are candidly and unrestrainedly critical who speak their mind fearlessly without fear or favour get dubbed as rebels and troublemakers as its preferable to have a conformist than a defiant individual who upsets the apple cart of status quo.


defamation is a punishable offence as per penal laws in india and also a civil offence as per the doctrine of common law. the law of defamation has quite a number of exceptions as it is closely connected with freedom of speech and expression which ought to be safeguarded and upheld it being a fundamental right.the prerequisite for proving defamation is damage to reputation which lowers one's esteem in the eyes of right thinking members of society.journalists are not easily hauled up for defamation as they claim just and bonafide criticism and public interest as their arsenal to combat defamatory suits. defamation entails private prosecution and subjective satisfiation of the judge is an important necessity to prove defamation beyond reasonable doubt.

criticism is a necessary evil as it gives some food for thought to alter somehing for the better but defamation is a forbidden pursuit as it devastates character which is a man's inviolable right.