Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors. on 5 May, 2020 mud." 16. It was held that action could not be maintained. The observation of Willes, J., quoted below, on this aspect of the law is interesting and at the same time illuminating.-"Willes, J.-- The action cannot be maintained. Assuming the article to be libellous, it is not a libel on the plaintiff, it only reflects on a class of persons dealing in such objects, and it is immaterial in this view whether they are genuine or not. If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there is something to point to the particular individual, which [305] there is not here. There is nothing to show that the article was inserted with any special reference to the plaintiff." ***** ***** ***** 18. The class of Advocates in general is a much more amorphous and indeterminate body than the conference alluded to in the Supreme Court case referred to above. The law in respect of defamation of a class of persons as enunciated by Salmond is as follows:-"In every case where the plaintiff is not named the test whether the words used refer to him is the question whether the words are such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to. If the words can be regarded as capable of referring to the plaintiff, the jury still have to decide the question of fact--Do they lead reasonable people, who know him, to the conclusion that they do refer to him? (Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper[1944] A.C. 116, 121) "The reason why a libel published of a large or indeterminate number of persons described by some general name generally fails to be actionable is the difficulty of establishing that the plaintiff was, in fact, included in the defamatory statements, for the habit of making unfounded generalisation is ingrained in ill educated or vulgar minds, or the words are occasionally intended to be facetious exaggeration" (Ibid. at 112, per Lord Atkin). Thus no action would lie at the suit of anyone for saying that all mankind is vicious and depraved, or even for alleging that all clergymen are hypocrites or all lawyers dishonest. [Eastwood v. Holmes(1858) 1 F. & F. 347]. For charges so general in their nature are merely vulgar generalisation". Vide [Salmond on the Law of Torts, Fifteenth Edition, 187]." 19. In Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.: Edited by Viscount Simonds) Vol. 24, page 5, paragraph 6 it has been observed that "A class of persons cannot be defamed as a class, nor can an individual be defamed by general reference to the class to which he belongs. A similar view has been taken by Gatley in "Libel and Slander" where it has been observed that "where the words complained of reflect on a body or class of Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/170570619/ 5