Legal Principles: 1. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. 2. The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. 3. A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation. 4. Sometimes a statement may not be defamatory on the face of it but contain an innuendo, which has a defamatory meaning. 5. Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.Factual Situation: In May 2017, a memorial commemorating the women of World War II was vandalized during an anti-government demonstration following the General Election. An offensive political slogan was spray painted across the plinth of the memorial. This act caused public outrage and widespread condemnation. On Twitter, a political writer, Asha Mehta said that she did not have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial building. Chandna reacted to this negatively, suggesting that Asha should be sent to join Terrorist Organization. Asha's comments and Chandna's reactions both received national media coverage. A few days later, Chandna published a tweet asking the question “Scrawled on any war memorials recently?” to Anshika Chauhan, another political activist. Anshika Chauhan responded stating that they had never vandalised any memorial building, and moreover had family members serving in the armed forces. Chandna followed with a second tweet, in which she asked if someone could explain the difference between Mehta (an “irritant”) and Anshika Chauhan (whom she described as “social anthrax”). Anshika Chauhan asked for a retraction via Twitter and was promptly blocked by Chandna. Anshika Chauhan asked Chandna to make a public apology and claimed compensation for libel alleging that the First Tweet suggested that she had either vandalised a war memorial, which was a criminal act; and the Second Tweet suggested that she approved or condoned that vandalisation. What is the meaning of the Tweets and whether those meanings had defamatory tendency? (AILET 2018)

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.