Type to filter the sections on this page · press Enter to search the whole site.
No section on this page matches — press Enter to search the whole site instead.
At a Glance
How a Defamation Matter Proceeds
Defamation can be pursued on two tracks — a criminal complaint for punishment, and a civil suit for damages and an injunction. The two may be pursued together. The flow below traces the common path of a defamation matter from the offending publication to the final order.
1
Defamatory Publication
2
Choose Track — Criminal / Civil
3
Complaint (BNSS 222) / Suit (CPC)
4
Summons & Appearance
5
Evidence & Defences
6
Order — Conviction / Damages / Injunction
Overview
What is Defamation?
Defamation is the publication of an imputation that harms a person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, without lawful justification. In India it is both a criminal offence and a civil wrong, and the same publication can give rise to both. Defamation in a permanent form — writing, print, or online content — is libel; in a transient form, such as spoken words, it is slander.
The criminal offence is defined and punished by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Sections 499-500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. It is a non-cognizable and bailable offence, so the police do not register an FIR; the aggrieved person files a private complaint before a Magistrate, and the court can take cognizance only on such a complaint under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 356 carries four explanations and ten exceptions — most importantly that truth for the public good, fair comment, and statements made in good faith are not defamation.
The civil action is a tort, not codified in a single statute, tried by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The remedies are damages and an injunction restraining further publication; once defamatory words are published they are presumed false, and the burden of proving truth lies on the defendant. Throughout, the courts balance the right to reputation — held in Subramanian Swamy to be part of Article 21 — against the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and are slow to grant a pre-publication injunction.
Key Takeaways
- Defamation in India exists in two forms — the criminal offence under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Sections 499–500 of the IPC, 1860), and the civil action in tort for damages and an injunction tried by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same publication can give rise to both.
- Criminal defamation is a non-cognizable and bailable offence, so the police do not register an FIR — the aggrieved person files a private complaint before a Magistrate, and the court takes cognizance only on such a complaint under Section 222 of the BNSS, 2023 (the successor to Section 199 CrPC). The punishment is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service.
- Section 356 carries four Explanations and ten Exceptions. The most important defences are truth published for the public good (truth alone is not enough in the criminal offence), fair comment in good faith on a matter of public conduct, and statements made on a privileged occasion.
- In the civil action, once defamatory words are published they are presumed false, and the burden of proving truth shifts to the defendant. The remedies are damages and an injunction restraining further publication, but courts are slow to grant a pre-publication (gag) injunction.
- The law balances the right to reputation — held in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) to be part of Article 21 — against the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Subramanian Swamy upheld criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), and remains binding, though in September 2025 the Supreme Court orally questioned whether the offence should be decriminalised.
- For online defamation, courts grant takedown and injunction relief and recognise intermediary duties (Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, 2019); against journalistic content, the Supreme Court has cautioned that interim and ex-parte gag orders must not be granted mechanically (Bloomberg v. Zee, 2024).
Essentials
Essentials of Defamation
Whether criminal or civil, a claim in defamation must establish the following elements. The cards below summarise them.
A Defamatory Imputation
A statement — by words spoken or written, signs, or visible representations — that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or to expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
Reference to the Plaintiff
The imputation must be shown to concern the complainant or plaintiff, whether named expressly or identifiable by innuendo; it may also concern a company or a determinate collection of persons.
Publication to a Third Person
The matter must be communicated to at least one person other than the person defamed. Without publication there is no defamation; communication only to the person concerned is not enough.
Intent or Knowledge to Harm
For the criminal offence, the maker must intend to harm, or know or have reason to believe that the imputation will harm, the reputation of the person.
Lowering of Reputation
The words must in fact tend to injure reputation. Once defamatory words are published they are presumed false, and in the civil action general damages are presumed where the words are actionable per se.
Absence of a Valid Defence
The claim fails if a recognised defence applies — truth for the public good, fair comment on a matter of public interest, or a privileged occasion. Section 356 BNS lists ten such exceptions.
Reliefs
Remedies Available for Defamation
The remedy depends on the track chosen. The criminal court can punish; the civil court can compensate and restrain. The table maps the principal reliefs and their source.
| Relief | Track | Basis & Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction & sentence | Criminal | S.356(2) BNS — imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both; printing/sale of defamatory matter may attract community service. |
| General & special damages | Civil | Compensation for the harm to reputation; where words are actionable per se, general damages are presumed without proof of special loss. |
| Permanent injunction | Civil | A decree restraining further publication of the defamatory matter after the suit is decided. |
| Interim injunction | Civil | An interlocutory order (Order XXXIX CPC) restraining publication pending trial — granted sparingly, only where the statement is clearly false. |
| Takedown of online content | Civil | An order directing intermediaries to remove or geo-block defamatory online content; global takedown for India-origin uploads. |
| Apology / retraction | Either | The parties may settle on a published apology, correction or retraction; criminal defamation is compoundable with the court's leave. |
Law Comparison
Criminal vs Civil Defamation
The same publication can be both a crime and a civil wrong, but the two tracks differ in forum, standard and outcome. The table contrasts them.
| Feature | Criminal Defamation | Civil Defamation |
|---|---|---|
| Source | S.356 BNS (ex-Ss.499-500 IPC) | Tort (common law); suit under CPC, 1908 |
| Forum | Magistrate, on complaint (BNSS S.222) | Civil court of competent jurisdiction (CPC S.9) |
| Who initiates | The aggrieved person, by private complaint | The plaintiff, by a plaint for damages / injunction |
| Standard of proof | Beyond reasonable doubt | Preponderance of probabilities |
| Outcome | Imprisonment up to 2 years / fine / community service | Damages and / or injunction |
| Nature / limitation | Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable | Civil action; one-year limitation from publication |
Procedure
Pursuing a Defamation Claim — Step by Step
The steps below set out the ordinary course on both tracks. Many matters begin with a legal notice; the choice of track, or both, depends on whether the aim is punishment, compensation, or restraint of further publication.
1
Assess & Choose the Track
Examine whether the statement is defamatory, refers to the client, was published, and whether a defence applies. Decide between a criminal complaint (punishment), a civil suit (damages and injunction), or both, and consider a legal notice seeking apology and retraction.
2
Criminal — Complaint before the Magistrate
As the offence is non-cognizable, the aggrieved person files a private complaint under Section 222 BNSS before the Magistrate, who records pre-summoning evidence and decides whether to summon the accused. Against specified public servants, a Court of Session may take cognizance on a complaint by the Public Prosecutor.
3
Civil — Suit for Damages & Injunction
File a suit in the civil court of competent jurisdiction (CPC) claiming damages and a permanent injunction, with the value and court fee on the damages claimed. Where warranted, seek an interim injunction under Order XXXIX restraining further publication.
4
Summons, Appearance & Reply
The court issues summons. In the criminal case the accused appears and the matter proceeds to charge; in the civil suit the defendant files a written statement, often pleading truth, fair comment or privilege.
5
Evidence & Defences
Each side leads evidence on publication, reference and harm. The defendant may set up the recognised defences — truth for the public good, fair comment on a matter of public interest, or a privileged occasion. In the civil action the burden of proving truth lies on the defendant.
6
Order — Conviction or Decree
The criminal court convicts and sentences or acquits; the civil court decrees damages and an injunction or dismisses the suit. The parties may also compound or settle on an apology or retraction at any stage.
Important Note
The substantive law of defamation is unchanged in content — Section 356 BNS carries forward the definition, Explanations and Exceptions of the former Section 499 IPC, adding only community service as a sentencing option — so the entire body of earlier case law continues to apply. For an offence committed before 1 July 2024 the IPC provisions (Sections 499–502) continue to govern the proceeding. Note the limitation periods: a criminal complaint must ordinarily be filed within three years and a civil suit within one year of publication, so the date of publication should be fixed precisely before filing.
Documents
Documents Commonly Required
The set depends on the medium and the track. The following are commonly needed in a defamation matter.
The defamatory material — newspaper clipping, print, screenshot, recording or transcript
Proof of publication and circulation — readership, views, dates and platform
Material showing that the imputation refers to the complainant or plaintiff
Evidence of harm to reputation — loss of business, social or professional standing
Legal notice issued and the reply, if any, received
The complaint or plaint, supporting affidavit and list of witnesses
For online matter — URLs, archived copies, and intermediary / platform details
Identity proof, vakalatnama and court fee for the complaint or suit
Practical Tip
Decide early between the criminal and the civil route — or pursue both. The criminal complaint is cheaper and creates pressure but yields no compensation; the civil suit can recover damages and secure an injunction but takes longer and carries court-fee on the amount claimed. In either case, preserve the defamatory material immediately: take dated screenshots, save URLs, archive the page (and, for online content, send the platform a written takedown notice so the “actual knowledge” standard is met). Identify the precise words complained of and how each lowers your reputation, because vague or omnibus allegations of “defamation” are routinely rejected. If you are the one sued, remember that truth for the public good, fair comment and privilege are complete defences — gather the documents that prove them before the first hearing. Limitation is strict, so act promptly.
Key Points
Key Reference Points — Defamation
⏱ Key Reference Points — Defamation (Criminal & Civil)
Criminal provisionBNS S.356 (ex-IPC S.499)
PunishmentUp to 2 years / fine / both
Criminal procedureComplaint — BNSS S.222
Nature of offenceNon-cognizable, bailable
CompoundableYes — with the Court
Civil remedyDamages + injunction
Civil forumCivil court — CPC S.9
Civil limitationOne year from publication
Burden of proofWords presumed false
Key defenceTruth for the public good
Pre-publication injunctionGranted very sparingly
Online contentTakedown / injunction
Applicable Laws
Relevant Statutes
Defamation draws on the criminal law (BNS, with the IPC as predecessor and the BNSS for procedure) and the civil law (a tort tried under the CPC). The verbatim text of the central provisions is set out below.
📖 Relevant Section — S.356 (BNS, 2023) +
356. Defamation.—(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, 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 excepted, to defame that person.
(2) Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
Section 356 carries four Explanations (covering imputations against the dead, a company or collection of persons, and ironical or alternative imputations) and ten Exceptions — the most important being that it is not defamation to impute anything true which the public good requires to be published, or to make a fair comment in good faith on a matter of public conduct. It is the successor to Sections 499-500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. — Section 356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20062.
(2) Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
Section 356 carries four Explanations (covering imputations against the dead, a company or collection of persons, and ironical or alternative imputations) and ten Exceptions — the most important being that it is not defamation to impute anything true which the public good requires to be published, or to make a fair comment in good faith on a matter of public conduct. It is the successor to Sections 499-500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. — Section 356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20062.
📖 Relevant Section — S.499 (IPC, 1860) +
499. Defamation.—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 excepted, to defame that person.
This is the classic definition, carried forward in substance by Section 356 BNS. It is accompanied by four Explanations and ten Exceptions, and the punishment is provided by Section 500 (simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both). The Indian Penal Code continues to govern offences committed before 1 July 2024. — Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860. Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742.
This is the classic definition, carried forward in substance by Section 356 BNS. It is accompanied by four Explanations and ten Exceptions, and the punishment is provided by Section 500 (simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both). The Indian Penal Code continues to govern offences committed before 1 July 2024. — Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860. Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742.
📖 Relevant Section — S.222 (BNSS, 2023) +
222. Prosecution for defamation.—(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that where such person is, for example, a child, of unsound mind, or a woman who according to local custom ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. Sub-section (2) allows a Court of Session to take cognizance, without committal, upon a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor where the person defamed is the President, Vice-President, a Governor, a Minister, or a public servant in respect of his public functions. It is the successor to Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. — Section 222(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20099.
Provided that where such person is, for example, a child, of unsound mind, or a woman who according to local custom ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. Sub-section (2) allows a Court of Session to take cognizance, without committal, upon a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor where the person defamed is the President, Vice-President, a Governor, a Minister, or a public servant in respect of his public functions. It is the successor to Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. — Section 222(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20099.
📖 Relevant Section — S.9 (CPC, 1908) +
9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Civil defamation is a suit of a civil nature, and so is tried by the ordinary civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction; the temporary injunction restraining publication pending trial is sought under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. — Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/76869205.
Civil defamation is a suit of a civil nature, and so is tried by the ordinary civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction; the temporary injunction restraining publication pending trial is sought under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. — Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/76869205.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 356
Defines and punishes criminal defamation, with four Explanations and ten Exceptions (truth for the public good, fair comment, privileged statements and others). Punishment is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. It is the successor to Sections 499-500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
View on India Code →
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 499-502
The predecessor provisions on defamation: Section 499 defines defamation (with the same Explanations and Exceptions), Section 500 prescribes the punishment, and Sections 501-502 deal with printing, engraving and sale of defamatory matter. The IPC continues to govern offences committed before 1 July 2024.
View on India Code →
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 222
Provides the procedure for prosecuting criminal defamation: a Court takes cognizance under Section 356 BNS only on a complaint by the aggrieved person, with a special route allowing a Court of Session to act on a Public Prosecutor's complaint where the person defamed is the President, a Governor, a Minister or a public servant. It is the successor to Section 199 CrPC, 1973.
View on India Code →
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 9 & Order XXXIX
Civil defamation is a tort tried by the civil courts under the Code. Section 9 confers jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature; a suit for damages and a permanent injunction lies, and a temporary injunction restraining further publication may be sought under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2.
View on India Code →
Case Law
Landmark & Recent Judgments
The decisions below shape the law of defamation in India — its constitutional validity, the defences, the position of public figures, the caution against pre-publication injunctions, and the approach to online defamation. Each link opens the verified judgment on Indian Kanoon.
1
Recent (2024) — Injunctions in Defamation Suits
Bloomberg Television Production Services v. Zee Entertainment
Supreme Court of India | 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426 | Decided: 22.03.2024 | Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra, JJ.
Setting aside an unreasoned ex-parte order to take down an article, the Court held that the three-fold test for interim relief — prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm — applies to defamation suits but must not be applied mechanically. A pre-trial injunction against journalistic content (a gag order) has serious free-speech and public-interest consequences and should be granted with caution.
View on Indian Kanoon →
2
Recent (2019) — Online Takedown & Intermediaries
Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, Inc.
Delhi High Court | 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10701 | Decided: 23.10.2019 | Pratibha M. Singh, J.
In a suit over defamatory videos, the Court held that intermediaries must take down content globally where it was uploaded from India, and use geo-blocking for content uploaded abroad so that it is inaccessible from India. Interpreting "actual knowledge" under Section 79 of the IT Act in the light of Shreya Singhal, it held that a court order obliges the intermediary to disable the content.
View on Indian Kanoon →
3
Landmark (2016) — Criminal Defamation Upheld
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India | (2016) 7 SCC 221 | Decided: 13.05.2016 | Dipak Misra & Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499-500 IPC (now Section 356 BNS) and Section 199 CrPC. It held that the right to reputation is an inalienable facet of Article 21, that defamation is expressly saved as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2), and that the offence is narrowly drawn — requiring intent or knowledge to harm, with ten detailed exceptions. The civil remedy was held not to be an adequate substitute for the criminal sanction.
View on Indian Kanoon →
4
Recent (2011) — Online Defamation & SLAPP
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International
Delhi High Court | 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466 : (2011) 178 DLT 705 | Decided: 28.01.2011 | S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Tata sought to restrain an online game critical of a port project. The Court refused an interim injunction, holding that the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman applies to online publication too — a pre-trial injunction is granted only where the statement is clearly and unarguably false. It cautioned against SLAPP suits brought to stifle legitimate criticism on matters of public interest.
View on Indian Kanoon →
5
Recent (2006) — Civil Defamation & Damages
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy
Delhi High Court | AIR 2006 Del 300 : 126 (2006) DLT 535 | Decided: 03.01.2006
The Court held a statement that the plaintiff had received payments from a banned organisation to be false and defamatory, made on an occasion that lost the protection of privilege. The decision illustrates the civil action in defamation — proof of a defamatory imputation, reference and publication, the limits of qualified privilege, and the award of damages to vindicate reputation.
View on Indian Kanoon →
6
Landmark (2002) — Pre-Publication Injunction
Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi
Delhi High Court | AIR 2002 Del 58 | Decided: 18.09.2001 | Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (DB)
A Division Bench refused an injunction against the publication of a chapter of Khushwant Singh's autobiography. Applying the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman, the Court held that the threshold for a pre-publication injunction is very high — where the defendant pleads truth or justification and the plaintiff has a remedy in damages, prior restraint should not be granted, lest free speech be stifled.
View on Indian Kanoon →
7
Recent (1997) — Defamation Per Se
D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata
Rajasthan High Court | AIR 1997 Raj 170 | Decided: 04.04.1997 | Mohd. Yamin, J.
A newspaper falsely reported that a young woman had eloped, published negligently and without verification. The Court held the report defamatory and actionable per se — defamatory words are presumed false, the burden of proving truth lies on the defendant, and general damages are presumed without proof of special loss. The award of damages was upheld.
View on Indian Kanoon →
8
Landmark (1994) — Public Officials & Prior Restraint
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto Shankar case)
Supreme Court of India | (1994) 6 SCC 632 : AIR 1995 SC 264 | Decided: 07.10.1994 | B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
A foundational decision on press freedom, privacy and defamation. The Court held that the State and its officials cannot impose a prior restraint on publication of allegedly defamatory matter — the remedy lies in an action after publication. A public official has no remedy in defamation for matters relating to the discharge of public duties unless the publication is made with reckless disregard for the truth (the standard in New York Times v. Sullivan), and truth or a public record is a defence.
View on Indian Kanoon →
9
Landmark (1968) — Publication & Who May Complain
M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan
Supreme Court of India | (1970) 1 SCC 257 : AIR 1970 SC 1876 | Decided: 13.11.1968
A son-in-law wrote letters to his wife containing imputations against her father, who launched a prosecution for defamation. The Court held that the complaint could not be quashed at the threshold: while Section 122 of the Evidence Act bars the wife from disclosing the marital communication, the letters might be proved by other means, and whether a communication to one's spouse amounts to publication was a matter to be decided at trial.
View on Indian Kanoon →
10
Landmark (1965) — Defamation of a Collection of Persons
Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India | AIR 1965 SC 1451 | Decided: 22.01.1965 | Raghubar Dayal, J.
The appellant's article alleged that the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors of a district were taking bribes. The Court held that an imputation against a determinate and identifiable collection of persons — here, the prosecuting staff — is defamation within Explanation 2 to Section 499, even though no individual is named, and upheld the conviction under Section 500.
View on Indian Kanoon →
Recent Developments
Recent Developments & Trends
2025 — Free Speech
Supreme Court Questions Criminal Defamation
On 22 September 2025, in a matter involving a JNU professor and The Wire, a Supreme Court Bench (Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma) observed orally that it may be time to decriminalise defamation, noting that the fear of criminal prosecution can chill free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and that civil remedies may suffice. The observation does not change the law — Subramanian Swamy (2016) remains binding and Section 356 BNS continues in force — but it signals a possible future reconsideration.
2024 — New Code
BNS Replaces the IPC; Section 356 = Sections 499-500
From 1 July 2024 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code. Defamation is now Section 356, retaining the definition, explanations and exceptions of the former Section 499, and adding community service as a sentencing option. The settled case law continues to apply.
2024 — Free Speech
Caution Against Pre-Trial Gag Orders
In Bloomberg v. Zee the Supreme Court held that the three-fold test for interim injunctions applies to defamation but must not be applied mechanically, and that ex-parte orders against journalistic content carry serious free-speech consequences.
2016 — Constitutionality
Criminal Defamation Held Valid
In Subramanian Swamy the Court upheld criminal defamation, holding reputation to be part of Article 21 and the offence a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) — settling, for now, repeated challenges to its constitutionality.
2019 — Online Defamation
Takedowns & Intermediary Duties
In Swami Ramdev the Delhi High Court recognised global takedown for India-origin uploads and geo-blocking for foreign uploads, reflecting the growing role of social-media platforms in defamation disputes.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What is defamation?
Defamation is the publication of an imputation that harms a person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, without lawful justification. In a permanent form (writing, print, online) it is libel; in a transient form (spoken words) it is slander.
Is defamation a crime or a civil wrong in India?
It is both. The criminal offence is under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Sections 499-500 IPC), and the civil action is a tort for damages and an injunction tried under the Code of Civil Procedure. The same publication can give rise to both.
What is the punishment for criminal defamation?
Under Section 356(2) BNS, defamation is punishable with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. The offence is non-cognizable and bailable, so the police do not register an FIR.
Is truth a defence to defamation?
In the civil action, truth (justification) is a complete defence. In the criminal offence, the first exception to Section 356 requires that the imputation be both true and made for the public good — truth alone is not enough. Fair comment and privileged statements are also recognised defences.
Who can file a criminal defamation complaint?
Under Section 222 BNSS, a Court can take cognizance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. Where the person is a child, of unsound mind, or otherwise unable to complain, another may complain with the Court's leave. For specified public servants, a Court of Session may act on a complaint by the Public Prosecutor.
Can a company be defamed?
Yes. An imputation concerning a company, an association, or a determinate collection of persons can be defamatory (Explanation 2 to Section 356 BNS / Section 499 IPC), and the company can pursue the criminal or civil remedy in respect of damage to its reputation.
What is the limitation period for a civil defamation suit?
A civil suit for defamation is ordinarily subject to a one-year limitation, running from the date of publication of the defamatory matter under the Limitation Act, 1963. The exact starting point depends on the facts and the medium.
Can a court stop defamatory material from being published?
A court can grant an injunction, but the threshold for a pre-publication or interim injunction is very high. Applying the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman (followed in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi and Tata Sons v. Greenpeace), prior restraint is granted only where the statement is clearly false; otherwise the remedy is damages after publication.
What can I do about defamatory content posted online?
A civil suit can seek damages and an order directing intermediaries to take down or geo-block the content. In Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, the Delhi High Court held that content uploaded from India can be ordered taken down globally, with geo-blocking for content uploaded abroad.
Is criminal defamation constitutionally valid?
Yes. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation, holding that the right to reputation is part of Article 21 and that defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech saved by Article 19(2).
Where is a defamation matter filed in Delhi?
A criminal complaint is filed before the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction; a civil suit is filed in the civil court having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, which may be the District Courts (Rohini, Tis Hazari, Karkardooma, Saket or Dwarka) or the Delhi High Court depending on the value. The firm's practice covers these forums.
Self-Assessment
Test Your Knowledge — Defamation Quiz
⚖️ Defamation
Glossary
Key Legal Terms
Defamation
Publication of an imputation that harms a person's reputation without lawful justification.
Libel
Defamation in a permanent form — writing, print, or online content.
Slander
Defamation in a transient form — spoken words or gestures.
Imputation
The defamatory statement or charge made against a person.
Publication
Communication of the defamatory matter to at least one person other than the person defamed.
Innuendo
A meaning, beyond the ordinary words, by which a statement is understood to refer to or defame the plaintiff.
Justification
The defence of truth; in criminal defamation, truth must also be for the public good.
Fair Comment
An honest opinion, made in good faith, on a matter of public interest — a recognised defence.
Privilege
An occasion on which a statement is protected (absolutely or qualifiedly), such as judicial or legislative proceedings.
Actionable Per Se
Words so defamatory that damage to reputation is presumed, without proof of special loss.
Was this page helpful?
Thank you — your feedback has been noted.
This is an informational guide and is reviewed periodically against the official sources cited above. If any provision appears outdated or an inadvertent error is noticed, it may be pointed out using the contact details on this page so that the content can be reviewed and corrected. Readers should verify the current statutory text and case law from authentic sources before relying on it.
