The presence of Over-the-top (OTT) platforms like Amazon Prime has introduced a time of access to different and diverse content. However, this creative liberty accompanies an internal and external risk -the potential for criminal defamation. While fundamental for creative showcasing and narrating, a reasonable understanding and enforcement of defamation regulations are pivotal to shield people's crucial right to reputation. Unchecked online content poses a dual threat: tarnishing individual reputations and stifling creative expression.

Fictional portrayals inspired by real individuals, often lacking factual basis, can paint them in a negative light, damaging their public image. The series "Mirzapur" and its character "Akhandanand Tripathi" plays a huge incident to investigate the sensitive harmony between creative expression and individual integrity and reputation in this technologically advanced digital age.

The instance of "Mirzapur" bases on the personality of "Akhandanand Tripathi," whose similarity to an actual creator, Surrender Mohan Pathak, has started concerns about criminal defamation.  The contention relies on the matter that the character shows similarities in qualities, peculiarities, mannerism or even name varieties - to Surrender Mohan Pathak, possibly depicting him in a negative lime light and harming his reputation in the society. The essence of the potential defamation case relies on the contention that the person "Akhandanand Tripathi" in the series shows attributes and peculiarities like Pathak. This supposed similarity, goes past simple coincidence and portrays the creator, possibly harming his reputation.

Deciding if this constitutes defamation requires breaking down the elements in section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Understanding Criminal Defamation

Section 499 says that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Further, section 500- Punishment for defamation- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both
In the series Mirzapur, wrong portrayal of Pathak was considerably defamatory.

According to the essential:

• The portrayal of "Akhandanand Tripathi" with the original creator's work "Dabba" and its association with unethical content in the work, lowered the reputation of Surrender Mohan Pathak in the eyes of others or exposed him to hatred.
• The series, being aired on a widely accessible platform like Amazon Prime, fulfils the publication requirement.
• The crucial question lies in whether the character is identifiable as Pathak. While the name might be different, if specific characteristics, mannerisms, or other details create a strong association with Pathak in the minds of the audience.
• The intention or knowledge of the creators to defame Pathak would mean that the creator has intentionally caused that scene to take place. Here, Pathak himself claimed that the book did not have anything as mentioned in the scene and mischievously represented. Also, the entertainment partner of the series, Exol Entertainment, as given in their statement as a reply to Surrender Mohan Pathak's letter, accepted that they were aware of the creator and their original content.

How OTT Platform Acts As An Enabler Of Reputational Harm

While amplifying influence of Over-the-top (OTT) platforms have revolutionized entertainment through diverse content and accessibility, they also present unique challenges regarding the potential for defamation. Unlike traditional media, these platforms can act as enablers of widespread reputational harm due to their specific characteristics. OTT platforms like Amazon Prime boast massive user bases, potentially amplifying the reach of defamatory content beyond traditional media limitations.

A single instance of a potentially defamatory portrayal can invite millions of viewers, causing widespread damage to an individual's reputation and potentially impacting their personal and professional life.This expansive reach magnifies the potential consequences compared to more localized forms of media.

 Compared to traditional media like television and radio, which are subject to stricter regulations and content moderation practices, OTT platforms might operate under less stringent regulations. This regulatory gap can create loopholes for potentially defamatory content to slip through the cracks and reach audiences. While some platforms have implemented content moderation policies, their effectiveness and consistency can vary, creating an uncertain landscape for creators and viewers alike.

While the Information and Technology Act, 2000 provides some legal framework for addressing online content, it has limitations in effectively regulating OTT platforms and mitigating defamation risks.The IT Act primarily focuses on regulating intermediary platforms and does not explicitly address content creation or moderation on OTT platforms. This creates a crucial gap in addressing the specific responsibilities of content creators and platforms regarding potentially defamatory content.

The Act outlines procedures for intermediaries to remove content deemed objectionable upon receiving a court order or a notification from the government. However, this process can be time-consuming and requires individuals to take legal recourse, which might not be accessible or feasible for everyone affected by defamatory content. Moreover, the Act grants intermediary's legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, except in specific cases. This can create a sense of detachment from the potential harm caused by defamatory content, hindering proactive efforts by platforms to address and moderate such content.

Due to the limited scope of the IT Act and the anonymity of creators in some instances, holding individuals directly responsible for defamatory content can be challenging. However, this cannot be used as a means to over exercise the freedom of expression that holds certain restriction too. This can create a sense of impunity and hinder efforts to seek appropriate redress for individuals affected by defamation.

The reliance on the broader IT Act for addressing defamation on OTT platforms creates an uneven playing field compared to traditional media, which might be subject to stricter regulations and content moderation practices. This inconsistency can undermine public trust in the legal system and its ability to ensure equal protection from defamation across different mediums.

In some instances, especially in the realm of user-generated content or online commentary, creators might operate anonymously. This anonymity poses a significant challenge in holding individuals accountable for potentially defamatory content. The difficulty in identifying or locating the source can create a sense of impunity, potentially increasing the likelihood of irresponsible and harmful content proliferation. Additionally, anonymous creators cannot be readily compelled to remove or rectify defamatory content, further complicating the issue.
 

Implication Of The Potential Defamatory Content On The Creator:

The potential for content makers to distort people can seriously harm their dignity and respect in different ways. This goes past fictitious depictions in scripted content like films or series, where characters could look similar to genuine individuals, yet lack factual basis.

The consistently developing scene of unscripted content likewise represents a danger. Unscripted TV dramas, or self-broadcasted "expose" content might possibly stigmatize people through altering, biased narratives twirled around filtered out content, or just by featuring segregated portion that paint an inadequate picture. For example, the letter that Surrender Mohan Pathak sent to the content creator mentioned the twirled content of the work "Dhabba".

He wrote, "What is being read is sheer porno, the undersigned cannot even dream of writing, supposedly to titillate the viewers. But in the process, the whole sequence is shown as an excerpt from my novel 'Dhabba', which amounts to mischievous misrepresentation."

The line blurs further with the invasion of privacy, as sharing confidential data without assent can be thought of as defamatory, particularly in the event that it projects the person in a wrong light. These assorted types of defamation feature the intricacies encompassing web-based online content and the potential for reputational hurt it can incur.

In this case, the alleged "mischievous misrepresentation" has the potential to negatively affect Pathak's reputation amongst viewers and potentially impact his future work and career prospects.

Navigating A Balancing Solution

The case surrounding the character "Akhandanand Tripathi" in the series "Mirzapur" and the potential defamation of author Pathak highlights the complex interplay between two fundamental rights: freedom of expression and protection from defamation. Striking a balance between these seemingly conflicting rights is paramount to ensure a thriving creative environment while safeguarding individual reputations.
Whether the character is identifiable as Pathak and the extent to which it tarnishes his reputation are subjective and vary among viewers.

The unique characteristics of OTT platforms necessitate a multi-pronged approach to address the potential for defamation while protecting creative freedom:

• Protection from Defamation: Individuals have the right to be protected from false and damaging portrayals that tarnish their reputation. Unchecked defamation can cause significant harm, leading to social isolation, loss of employment, and emotional distress. Therefore, legal frameworks must exist to deter and address instances of defamation.
• Upholding Freedom of Expression: Freedom of expression is crucial for fostering creativity, open discourse, and critical thinking. It allows individuals to express diverse viewpoints, challenge established norms, and contribute to the richness of cultural life. Stifling free expression can hinder social progress and limit the exchange of ideas.
   
• Strengthening Regulation: Implementing clear and consistent regulations for OTT platforms, while safeguarding artistic expression, is crucial. These regulations should establish guidelines for identifying and addressing defamatory content, ensuring fair and transparent procedures for user complaints, and requiring a mechanism for content takedown upon verification of defamation and fair restriction.
   
• Enhancing Platform Responsibility: OTT platforms have a substantial role to play in mitigating defamation risks. Robust content moderation policies, coupled with effective enforcement mechanisms, are essential. Additionally, fostering a culture of responsible content creation within the platform ecosystem through educational initiatives and user engagement can further encourage responsible expression.
   
• Promoting Individual Awareness: Empowering users with media literacy skills and fostering critical thinking abilities can equip them to assess the veracity of content, identify potential bias, and engage responsibly with online information. This includes understanding the potential consequences of sharing and amplifying potentially defamatory content.

 
Conclusion
The rise of OTT platforms presents both exciting opportunities and significant challenges. "Mirzapur" case, serves as a caution for both content creators and OTT platforms. While creative freedom is essential, its exercise should be mindful of the potential legal consequences, especially when characters bear close resemblance to real individuals.

Platforms have a responsibility to implement robust content moderation policies to mitigate the risk of defamatory content, while creators must strive for responsible storytelling practices. Ultimately, navigating this complex landscape requires striking a delicate balance between protecting individual reputations and fostering artistic expression in the ever-evolving digital world.

Addressing the potential for defamation requires a collaborative effort from creators, platforms, regulators, and the audience. By acknowledging the inherent risks associated with these platforms and taking proactive steps to mitigate them, we can ensure a vibrant and responsible online environment that fosters both creative expression and individual rights.