IPC 499/500 and BNS Section 356: India's Defamation Law Explained for 2026

The Transition from IPC to BNS: What Changed in 2024

For content published before 1 July 2024, IPC Sections 499 and 500 continue to apply. For content published after that date — which covers the large majority of current reputation crisis cases — BNS Section 356 is the operative provision. In practice, many defamation notices served in 2025 and 2026 cite both the old IPC provision and the new BNS provision to address content that spans the statutory transition, or out of caution where the publication date is unclear.

This guide refers to the law as "IPC 499/500 / BNS 356" throughout, reflecting the transition. The underlying legal framework — what constitutes defamation, who can be held liable, what defences are available, and what remedies are available — is functionally identical under both formulations and described here without distinction where the provisions are identical.

What Is Defamation Under Indian Law?

Under BNS Section 356 (formerly IPC Section 499), defamation is defined as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of that person. The key elements are: an imputation (a statement or suggestion), about a specific identifiable person, that harms or tends to harm that person's reputation, made with the required intention or knowledge.

The word "imputation" is broader than a direct false statement. It includes suggestions, insinuations, and implications — not merely explicit accusations. A post that does not directly call someone a criminal but implies it through context, photograph placement, or selective quotation can constitute defamation if the implication tends to harm the person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.

The person need not be named explicitly. An imputation about "a well-known Delhi real estate developer" or "the CEO of a specific company" is defamatory of that person if they are identifiable from the context. The test is whether a reasonable reader who knows the circumstances would understand the statement to refer to the claimant — not whether the name is spelled out.

Defamation requires publication — communication to at least one person other than the subject of the imputation. A private message sent only to the person being defamed is not defamation in law (though it may constitute other offences). A social media post, a news article, a Glassdoor review, a YouTube video, or a WhatsApp forward to multiple recipients are all "published" for defamation purposes.

Civil vs Criminal Defamation in India

India is one of the few democracies that retains criminal defamation alongside civil defamation. Criminal defamation under BNS Section 356 is punishable with simple imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both, or community service. It is a non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence — meaning a court takes cognisance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved (BNSS 2023 s.222, formerly CrPC s.199) and the case is tried by a Magistrate of the first class, not begun on an FIR through the police; the accused can secure bail as of right; and the complainant can compound (settle) the case with the accused.

Civil defamation is a tort under the common law as received and applied in India. It does not carry criminal punishment but allows the claimant to seek damages for the financial and reputational harm suffered. Significant damages awards in Indian civil defamation matters remain relatively uncommon compared to UK or US practice, but the threat of civil proceedings combined with interim injunctions is an effective tool for urgent content removal.

In online reputation management practice, the most immediately useful defamation remedy is not criminal prosecution or civil damages — it is the injunction. An interim injunction preventing the defendant from publishing or republishing the defamatory content, and directing the platform hosting it to remove it, can be obtained on an urgent ex parte basis (without notice to the defendant) in cases of severe harm. This is the primary reason defamation law is relevant to ORM: not to punish the publisher, but to obtain immediate judicial authority for content removal that can then be enforced against both the publisher and the hosting platform.

Why Section 66A of the IT Act Is Not an Option

Anyone searching for an online defamation remedy still comes across Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which made it an offence to send information that was "grossly offensive" or "menacing", or that the sender knew to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, insult or ill will. It is not available. The Supreme Court struck the whole section down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 as a violation of the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a). Some police stations went on registering cases under it for years afterwards, which is why it still appears in complaints, but any such case rests on a provision that no longer exists.

The Court's reasons explain why criminal defamation survived when Section 66A did not. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on speech on listed grounds, and defamation is one of them; annoyance, inconvenience and insult are not. The Court held that Section 66A was saved by none of the Article 19(2) grounds, that its terms were so open-ended that neither the person posting nor the police could tell where the line fell, and that only incitement, not discussion or advocacy, may be restricted in the interest of public order. It also observed that Section 66A did not concern itself with injury to reputation, the basic ingredient of defamation. The defamation offence itself, then in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, was upheld in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, and continues as Section 356 of the BNS.

Two consequences follow for anyone dealing with online content. A complaint or notice that cites Section 66A is defective on its face and hands the other side an easy answer. And the provision that does apply has to be chosen by what the content is: Section 356 of the BNS for a false imputation that harms reputation; Section 66E of the IT Act for images of a private area captured or published without consent; Sections 67 and 67A for obscene or sexually explicit material; and Section 79 read with the IT Rules 2021 for the platform that hosts any of it.

The Exceptions: What Is NOT Defamation Under Indian Law

BNS Section 356 contains ten exceptions — categories of statements that are not defamation even if they are imputation that harms reputation. The most practically relevant for online defamation cases are: (1) imputation of truth which the public good requires to be made or published; (2) fair comment on the conduct of a public servant in his public functions; (3) fair comment on the merits of any case decided by a court; (4) publication of a substantially true report of parliamentary or court proceedings; (5) fair comment on the character of a public figure in respect of their public role; and (6) expression of a bona fide opinion on the conduct of a public performer in that capacity.

The critical word throughout is "fair." The exceptions do not extend to malicious criticism, fabricated facts presented as truth, or disproportionate attacks motivated by personal animus rather than genuine public interest. A critical review of a doctor's professional practice, if factually accurate and fairly expressed, is not defamation. A fabricated story attributing criminal conduct to that doctor, presented as fact rather than opinion, is. The line between protected criticism and actionable defamation is a legal judgment that requires professional assessment.

For online reputation management purposes, the exception analysis is essential before filing a defamation notice. Content that constitutes protected opinion or fair comment cannot be removed through defamation law — and attempting to do so may damage the client's credibility if the matter proceeds to court. RepuLex's initial case assessment, reviewed by its partner law firm, includes a view on whether the content crosses the threshold from protected opinion into actionable defamation, and RepuLex declines cases where it does not.

Defamation Law as a Content Removal Tool

The practical power of defamation law for online content removal operates on two levels. At the first level, a formal defamation notice sent by a practising advocate to the publisher of the content sets out the legal risk the publisher already faces — criminal prosecution under BNS 356, civil damages, and the reputational and financial cost of defending proceedings. The notice itself creates no liability. Many publishers of defamatory online content are individuals or small businesses without the resources or appetite for extended litigation. The receipt of a formal defamation notice from an advocate frequently produces voluntary removal or retraction without any court filing.

At the second level, when the publisher does not voluntarily remove the content, the defamation proceedings themselves provide the vehicle for seeking an urgent interim injunction from the competent court: the civil court, or in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai the High Court, which has an original civil side. The application for injunction cites the defamatory content, establishes the prima facie case under BNS 356, demonstrates the ongoing harm to reputation and business, and requests the court to direct the publisher and the hosting platform to remove the content pending the final hearing. Indian courts grant these injunctions in well-documented defamation cases.

The combination of a complaint to the hosting platform under IT Act Section 79 and the IT Rules 2021, and defamation proceedings (which give the court power to order removal by both the publisher and the platform), is RepuLex's standard dual-track approach for serious online defamation, with the notices and any filings made by its partner law firm. The platform complaint starts the grievance clock and puts the platform on record; the defamation proceedings address the publisher's liability. A notice does not by itself strip the platform of its safe harbour: since Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), actual knowledge arises only from a court order or a government direction, and a court order must be acted on within three hours under Rule 3(1)(d). The exemption is also lost under Rule 7 of the IT Rules 2021 where the platform fails to observe the due diligence the Rules prescribe. The publisher, meanwhile, faces civil liability and a criminal complaint under BNS Section 356.

Who Can Be Held Liable for Online Defamation in India?

The primary defendants in an online defamation case are (1) the author or publisher of the defamatory content, and (2) the platform that hosts it, once it has lost the Section 79 safe harbour, most commonly by failing to act on a court order directing removal. In many online defamation cases, the author is anonymous — a pseudonymous social media account, a Glassdoor reviewer with a fake identity, or an anonymous commenter on a news portal.

Anonymous publishers are handled through John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders — court applications for a direction to the platform to disclose identifying information (IP address, registered email, phone number) for the anonymous account that published the content. Indian courts grant these orders routinely in defamation matters where the anonymity is used to evade accountability for clearly defamatory content. Once the author's identity is disclosed, defamation proceedings can be initiated directly against them.

In the interim — while the John Doe application is pending or before the author's identity is established — the interim injunction against the platform to remove the content provides immediate practical relief. The two proceedings run in parallel: John Doe order to identify the author, interim injunction to remove the content. Both are available from the same court in the same application where efficiency requires it.

Corporate defendants — companies that sponsor or coordinate reputation attacks through anonymous third parties — face liability under the law of torts for conspiracy and malicious falsehood, in addition to the defamation liability of the individual publishers. These cases require evidence of coordination, which is harder to establish but available in documented competitor-sourced defamation campaigns.

Practical Steps: From Defamatory Content to Legal Removal

Step 1: Document the content fully. Before taking any legal action, capture comprehensive evidence: screenshots with timestamps, the full URL, the platform and publication date, the specific defamatory passages quoted verbatim, and any identifiable information about the author. Evidence preservation at this stage is critical — content can be deleted by the author (especially after receiving a notice), and courts require evidence of the original publication.

Step 2: Obtain a legal assessment. A qualified advocate should review the content and assess: (a) does it constitute defamation under BNS 356, (b) does any exception apply, (c) who is the appropriate defendant and in which jurisdiction, and (d) which route — IT Act notice, defamation notice, or both — is most appropriate. RepuLex and its partner law firm complete this assessment within 4 hours under NDA.

Step 3: Issue the notice or file the application. For many platforms and publishers, a formal defamation notice combined with an IT Act Section 79 notice leads to removal without court proceedings. Where the publisher is anonymous or the platform is non-responsive, the court application is the immediate next step.

Step 4: Verify removal. Once removal is confirmed by the platform, verify de-indexing from Google search results. If de-indexing does not occur automatically within 7-14 days of source removal, a request to Google to refresh the outdated result, or a legal removal request citing the court order where there is one, is the appropriate follow-up. RepuLex provides written confirmation of removal with Google de-index verification as part of standard case closure documentation.