Criminal Defamation (S. 356 BNS)

Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Criminal Defamation (S. 356 BNS)

Defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 addresses the protection of an individual’s reputation—recognized as an essential aspect of personal dignity—against false statements or imputations made with the intent to harm. Under the BNS, defamation typically involves making or publishing any imputation concerning a person, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will damage their reputation. The law balances two competing interests: the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to reputation. As a result, not every critical or negative statement amounts to defamation; only those that are false and made with malicious intent or negligence fall within its scope. The provisions also recognize certain exceptions, such as statements made in good faith for the public good, fair criticism of public conduct, and judicial proceedings. These safeguards ensure that the law does not stifle legitimate expression or public discourse.

Difference between civil defamation and criminal defamation:

Civil Defamation	Criminal Defamation
Civil defamation refers to a false statement that harms a person’s reputation, leading to a legal claim for compensation or damages in a civil court.	Criminal defamation involves making a false statement with the intent to harm someone’s reputation, which is punishable under criminal law (Section 356 of the BNS).
It is governed by civil law under the law of torts (specifically, the law of defamation under tort law).	It is governed by Section 356 of the BNS, which deals with criminal offenses.
It aims to compensate the victim for the harm done to their reputation. The focus is on restoring the victim’s standing.	It aims to punish the offender and deter similar behaviour in the future. It focuses on maintaining public order and respect.
The plaintiff (the person who claims defamation) must prove the existence of defamation and the damages suffered.	The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed defamation with malicious intent.
The offender may be ordered to pay monetary damages or compensation to the victim.	The offender may face imprisonment (up to 2 years), fines, or both, as per Section 356 BNS.
Example: A company sues a competitor for false claims that damage its business reputation.	Example: A person makes false accusations of corruption against a public official, intending to harm their reputation. The official files a criminal complaint.

Defining Criminal Defamation:

Section 356 BNS:

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.

Explanation 1:

It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2:

It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3:

An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4:

No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

According to Section 356(1) BNS any person can be held liable for criminal defamation if they communicate something about another person—whether through spoken or written words, gestures, images, or any other form—that harms that person’s reputation. It includes both creating such a statement and sharing it with others. The law requires a certain mental element: the person must have intended to harm the reputation, or at least knew or had reason to believe that their statement would have that effect. The term “imputation” refers to any allegation or claim that could lower a person’s standing in the eyes of others. However, this rule is not absolute, as certain exceptions—such as statements made in good faith or for the public good—are not considered defamation.

Essential Elements of Criminal Defamation (Section 356(1) BNS):

Accused made or published any imputation concerning any person;
Such imputation were made by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or signs, or visible representations;
such imputation were made with the intention (mens rea) of harming or with the knowledge or with reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of that person.
The imputation is not covered by any one of the ten exceptions given in the Section.

From essentials and the use of phrase “makes or publishes” we can conclude that, when a defamatory statement is published, it is not only the publisher, but also the maker who becomes responsible and it is in that context that the word “makes” is used in Section 356(1) BNS.

In B. R. K. Murthy v. State of A.P., 2013 CrLJ 1602 (AP) case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the essentials of defamation are firstly, the words must be defamatory; secondly, they must refer to the aggrieved party; thirdly, they must be maliciously published.

In Chandrasekharan v. State, 2014(4) KLJ 268 case, the Court held that in order to constitute an offence of defamation, the essential ingredient is to make an imputation, concerning any person, with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reason that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. An imputation without knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of such a person will not constitute an offence of defamation.

Section 356(1) BNS defines criminal defamation with Explanations and ten exceptions and a number of illustrations. There are four explanations attached to this Section.

Explanation 1:

It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

According to Explanation 1 attached to Section 356(1) BNS, defamation can extend to statements made about a deceased person if two key conditions are satisfied: first, the imputation must be of such a nature that it would have harmed the person’s reputation had they been alive, and second, it must be made with the intention of hurting the feelings of the deceased’s family or close relatives. In essence, while the law primarily protects the reputation of living individuals, it also recognizes that malicious attacks on the character of the dead can indirectly harm the dignity and emotional well-being of those closely connected to them, and therefore such statements may still attract legal liability.

Examples elaborating Explanation 1:

Saying publicly that a deceased doctor “used to illegally sell organs,” knowing it’s untrue and that it would shock and hurt their family.
Claiming that a respected deceased teacher “was involved in immoral relationships with students,” without evidence, intending to tarnish their image and upset relatives.
Spreading a rumour that a deceased businessman “cheated many people and hid black money,” when this is false and likely to damage how others remember them.
Posting online that a deceased community leader “was a fraud and a liar,” specifically to provoke and distress their children or spouse.
Writing an article alleging that a deceased public figure “had secret criminal links,” with no basis, knowing such claims would harm their legacy and hurt close relatives.

All above statements are harmful to reputation of deceased and are made with the intention to hurt the family’s feelings, not just to inform or discuss facts.

In Luckumsey Rowji v. Hurban Nursey (1881) 5 Bom 580 case, the Court held that no suit for damages will lie in the case of defamation of deceased person hence the heirs cannot claim any damages, but criminal prosecution can be followed if the imputation made is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

In Broom v. Richie, (1905) 6 F 942 case, the widow of a warehouseman brought a defamation case against a newspaper for publishing that her husband had a habit of taking a drug called chloral and taking its overdose, her husband had committed suicide. She further plead that the statement was false and calumnious and was published wrongfully and illegally and that she had suffered grievously in her feelings and reputation, and she and her children would continue to suffer owing to the statement published. The Court held that an aspersion on a person after death cannot give the right to anyone else to recover damages as for a wrong done to the deceased. Court further observed that there may be right in persons to sue where the statement directly affects their status or patrimonial interest.

In Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law, AIR 2016 SC 2728 case, the Court held that imputation can only be treated as defamatory if it directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers a person’s character or his credit. Court also held that the principle of grant of damage/ compensation cannot be equated with the principle of protection of the reputation of the family or near relatives.

Explanation 2:

It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Examples for Explanation 2:

Saying, “ABC Pvt. Ltd. manufactures fake medicines,” when this is false and damages the company’s credibility.
Claiming, “All members of the XYZ Housing Society are involved in illegal activities,” intending to lower their reputation in the community.
Alleging that “the doctors of City Hospital deliberately give wrong treatment for money,” if untrue and directed at a specific, identifiable group.
Stating that “the managing committee of a particular club has embezzled funds,” without evidence, thereby harming their reputation.
Saying, “The employees of this bank branch are fraudsters who cheat customers,” when the group is clearly identifiable and the claim is false.

To qualify to be criminal defamation of a group, the group must be specific and identifiable. Statements like “all lawyers are dishonest” or “all politicians are corrupt” usually do not amount to defamation because they refer to a vague, unidentifiable class rather than a particular group.

Section 2(26) BNS, lays down that the word “person” includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Thus this explanation is intended to include a company or an association or collection of persons under this Section.

According to Explanation 2 attached to Section 356(1) BNS, criminal defamation is not confined to individuals but extends to companies, associations, or any identifiable collection of persons. This means that making a false and harmful imputation against such a group—such as alleging dishonesty, fraud, or unethical conduct—can damage its reputation in the eyes of others and therefore amount to defamation. However, the group must be clearly defined and identifiable; vague or general statements about large or indeterminate classes of people do not usually qualify, as they do not point to a specific entity whose reputation can be said to be harmed.

For a collection of persons, such collection must be definite and a determinate body. Even a company or collection or association of persons can be prosecuted for an offence of defamation. Persons representing a company may commit offences punishable under provisions of the BNS in the name of the company itself. For the offence wherein corporal punishment is prescribed, an artificial body like a company can be prosecuted but it can only be punished with a fine.

In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2005 SC 2622 case, the Court observed: “There is no dispute that a company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences. Although there are earlier authorities to the effect that corporations cannot commit a crime, the generally accepted modern rule is that except for such crimes as a corporation is held incapable of committing by reason of the fact that they involve personal malicious intent, a corporation may be subject to indictment or other criminal processes, although the criminal act is committed through its agents.”

In Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola, (2011) 1 SCC 74 case, the Court had categorically held that the companies and corporate houses cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they are incapable of possessing the mens rea for the commission of criminal offences. By way of the principle of attribution, the criminal intent of the alter ego of the company/body corporate i.e. the persons or group of persons in control of the affairs of the company and at the helm of its affairs would be attributed to the company.

If defamation of a class of persons is alleged, then that class must be a small determinate body.

In Krishnaswami v. C. H. Kanaram, 1971 Ker LT 145 case, A member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) brought a case of defamation against the defendant claiming that due to defamation of the party by the defendant, he (plaintiff) also get defamed. The Court observed that a large body of persons, the numerical strength of which is not known, nor could it be computed with any amount of precision, it cannot be said that each and every member of that group of persons constituting, such as a political party, each member of that party can be said to be defamed if the political group is imputed with any libelous imputation. But in the case of the Marxist Communist Party, as a collection of persons as such are defamed, the fact that in this case, the collection of persons is indeterminate and indefinite, it could not be said that each and every member of that body could maintain an action under Section 500 of IPC (S. 356(2) BNS) unless complainant was referred to as a person who had been defamed under the imputation.

In Vishwa Nath v. Shambha Nath Pandeya, 1995 CriLJ 277 case, the Court held that wherein an article of magazine imputations was made against a certain community in general and not any particular group, and nor were the said imputations related to the complainant, and the said the community was also not found to be a definite identifiable body of people, the continuance of the case after the death of the complainant under the representation of his advocate would not be proper.

In John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan, AIR 2001 SC 2651 case, a renowned hospital in the Metropolis of Madras (Chennai) has been caricatured in a newspaper as the abattoir of human kidneys for trafficking purposes. When the Director of the Hospital complained of defamation, the publisher of the newspaper sought shelter under the umbrage that the libel is not against the Director personally, but against the hospital only and hence he cannot feel aggrieved. The Court was faced with the question that if defamation pertains to an association of persons or a body corporate, who could be the complainant. The Court opined that the collocation of the words “by some person aggrieved” definitely indicates that the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each case. The Court ruled that this could be answered by making a reference to section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (s. 222(2) BNSS) which says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XIX of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.

Explanation 3:

Imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically may amount to defamation.

According to Explanation 3 attached to Section 356(1) BNS, an imputation does not need to be made in a direct or explicit manner to amount to defamation. Even statements framed as an alternative (for example, suggesting that a person “is either dishonest or incompetent”) or those expressed ironically or sarcastically can still harm a person’s reputation and therefore fall within the scope of defamation. The law focuses on the true meaning and overall effect of the words rather than their form, so if the statement, when reasonably understood, lowers the reputation of the person in the eyes of others, it may be treated as defamatory regardless of whether it is stated directly, indirectly, or in a sarcastic manner (innuendo).

An innuendo is a polite and innocent way of saying something on the surface but indirectly hints at an insult or rude comment, a dirty joke, or even social or political criticism. Thus, innuendo is a clever way to speak negative sentences in a very sarcastic way, which may appear to be positive at the surface of it. Innuendos are commonly used in everyday conversation as a socially acceptable way to be critical, mean, sexual, humorous, or even flirtatious.

Examples of Explanation 3:

Saying, “He is either corrupt or completely incapable of doing his job,” when directed at a public official, can be defamatory because both options damage reputation.
Stating, “Either she stole the money, or she doesn’t understand basic accounting,” implies wrongdoing or incompetence even without a direct accusation.
Saying, “What an honest businessman he is!” in a sarcastic tone, when the intention is to suggest dishonesty.
Commenting, “Of course, he never takes bribes—everyone knows his reputation!” where the tone clearly suggests the opposite.
Posting, “Best lawyer in town—never wins a case unless money changes hands,” implying unethical conduct through irony.

Even though these statements are not direct accusations, they still communicate a negative meaning. If a reasonable person understands them as harming someone’s reputation, they can amount to defamation.

Explanation 4:

No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

According to Explanation 4 attached to Section 356(1) BNS, an imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation only when it directly or indirectly lowers that person in the estimation of others. This lowering may relate to the person’s moral or intellectual character, such as suggesting dishonesty, immorality, or lack of intelligence, or it may affect how the person is viewed in respect of their caste or profession, thereby diminishing their social or occupational standing. It may also harm reputation by reducing the person’s creditworthiness in financial matters, such as implying fraud or insolvency, or by causing others to believe that the person is in a physically disgraceful or loathsome condition. In essence, the law recognises harm to reputation only when the statement meaningfully damages how society perceives the individual in these specific respects.

Examples of Explanation 4:

Saying, “He is a habitual liar and lacks any common sense,” which makes others view the person as dishonest or unintelligent.
Stating, “Members of this community are dishonest and untrustworthy,” when directed at a specific identifiable group, thereby damaging their social reputation.
Saying, “This doctor has no real medical knowledge and harms patients deliberately,” which undermines professional credibility.
Alleging, “She is a fraud who never repays loans,” which affects how others trust her in money matters.
Claiming, “He is suffering from a disgusting and shameful disease,” when said in a way that is intended to lower dignity in society.

Illustrations attached to Explanation – 4:

A says-“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’ watch”, intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’ watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
A is asked who stole B’s watch. Points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

In Smt. Dr. Nagarathinam vs M. Kalirajan, 2001 CRILJ 3007 case, the Madras High Court referred to a case Miss Violet Wapshare v. Miss Maureen Froud 70 Mad LW (Cri) 4 in which it was held that the word “publish” in Section 499,IPC (S. 356(1) BNS) is used in its etymological sense as connoting “to make public” or “to make known to people in general”. Since “publication” implies communication to the public or the people, it follows that it is not publication if the libeller merely communicates his libel to the person defamed. Such communications may amount to an insult and be punishable as such, but it is not publication for which he would be held liable under Section 499, IPC (S. 356(1) BNS). From this judgment the Madras High Court gave following guidelines in instant case:

A letter enclosed in the envelop and sent to the complainant by registered post, though sent on behalf of the accused by his counsel, would not amount to publication..
The allegations for imputations contained in the lawyer notices exchanged between the parties cannot be construed to be the publication.
The words “makes” or “publishes” would conjunctively connote “to make public” or “to make known to people in general”.
If the libeller merely communicates his libel to the person defamed, it is not publication.
The attack on the reputation of the complainant will follow when the words calculated to harm his reputation are communicated to some third party that is, to some person other than the person defamed.

This explanation is given to explain the word “harm”. Mere vulgar abuse does not amount to defamation. Where, for instance, a woman had uttered the word ‘chhinal’ (Commonly used word in quarrelling women in villages) against another woman meaning thereby that she was a woman of easy virtue, no case was held to be maintainable as the use of such kind of a language in villages by women fighting with one another is not uncommon. But describing as being the keep of a named man is obviously defamatory.

Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one’s reputation (defamation per se) and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don’t fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:

Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
Indications that a person had a “loathsome,” contagious, or infectious disease
Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
Indications that a person was involved in behaviour incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade, or profession

In J. Chelliah v. Rajeswari, 1969 CrLJ 571 case, the Court held that describing a woman that she has paramours wherever she goes is per se defamatory.

In K. S. Namjundiah v. Sethi Chikka Thipanna, AIR 1952 Mys 389 case, the Court held that describing one as a “black marketer” and that too in a public gathering is per se defamatory.

Exceptions to Criminal Defamation under Section 356(1):

First Exception:

Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published:

It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Second Exception:

Public conduct of public servants:

It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Third Exception:

Conduct of any person touching any public question:

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Fourth Exception:

Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts:

It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Explanation:

A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.

Fifth Exception:

Merits of a case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned:

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Sixth Exception:

Merits of public performance:

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.

Explanation:

A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.

Seventh Exception:

Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another:

It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Eighth Exception:

Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person:

It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

Ninth Exception:

Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests:

It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Tenth Exception:

Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good:

It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

These EXCEPTIONS are discussed in details in separate articles, please refer Related Topics List.

Punishment for Defamation (S. 356(2) BNS):

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.

Nature of Offence:

In case of defamation against the President or the Vice President or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor, then the offence is Non-cognizable, Bailable and triable by Court of Session and in all other cases the offence is Non-cognizable, Bailable and triable by Magistrate of the First Class.

Punishment for Publishing Defamation (S. 356(3) BNS):

Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Nature of Offence:

Punishment for Selling Defamatory Publications (S. 356(4) BNS):

(4) Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Nature of Offence:

Privileges:

The law treats some occasions to be privileged and a defamatory statement made on such occasions is not actionable. Privilege is of two kinds: (1) Absolute Privilege,(2)Qualified Absolute Privilege:

Absolute Privilege:

In matters of absolute privilege, no action lies for the defamatory statement even though the statement is false or has been made maliciously.(Can be false/made with malice). Absolute proceedings are available to followings:

Parliamentary Proceedings
Judicial Proceedings (judges, counsels, witnesses, or parties, for words written/spoken in the course of proceedings)
State Communications.

Examples of Absolute Privilege:

A Member of Parliament, during a debate in Parliament, says: “The minister has been involved in corrupt practices and misused public funds.” Even if this statement is false or made with malice, no defamation action can be taken because it was made during parliamentary proceedings.
While delivering a judgment, a judge states: “The defendant is a habitual fraudster who has deceived multiple people.”
During arguments, a lawyer says: “The witness is lying and has fabricated evidence.”
A witness testifies in court: “I saw the accused steal the money.”
A government officer sends an official report stating: “The officer under review has engaged in misconduct and violated service rules.”

Even if any of these statements turn out to be false or malicious, they are protected as long as they are made in the course of judicial proceedings or as communication made as part of official duty between state authorities

Arun Jaitley- Arvind Kejriwal Case:

Jaitley had filed a defamation suit seeking Rs 10- crore in damages after Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders accused him of alleged irregularities and financial bungling in the DDCA, of which Jaitley was the president for about 13 years until 2013.

Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley sued Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal further under an additional defamation suit worth Rs 10-crore, after the latter’s Counsel Ram Jethmalani confirmed that Jaitley was called a ‘crook’ after being instructed by his client to do so. Jethmalani accused Jaitley of being ‘guilty of crimes and crookery’

Qualified Privilege:

Unlike the defence of absolute privilege, in this case it is necessary that the statement must have been made without malice. Examples are:

Statements should be made in discharge of a duty or protection:- Former employer to new employer/ creditor to creditor/Interview Board/DPC
Reports of Parliamentary, Judicial or other public proceedings(truthful/without malice /public good)

Examples of Qualified Privileges:

A previous employer writes in a reference letter: “The employee was frequently late and had issues meeting deadlines.” This is protected if given honestly and without malice to help the new employer make an informed decision.
One creditor informs another: “X has outstanding debts and has defaulted on previous payments.” This is privileged if shared in good faith to protect financial interests.
A board member states during evaluation: “The candidate lacks leadership skills and is not suitable for promotion.” Such opinions are protected when expressed honestly as part of official duty.
A newspaper publishes: “The court heard allegations that the accused had committed fraud.” If the report is fair, accurate, and without malice, it is protected—even if the allegations later prove false.
A journalist reports: “During the session, a member accused the minister of mismanagement.” Protection applies if the report is a true and fair account made in public interest.
Coverage of a municipal meeting: “Residents alleged that the contractor used substandard materials.” Again, privilege applies if the reporting is honest, accurate, and not driven by malice.

Unlike absolute privilege, qualified privilege can be lost if malice is proven. The statement must be made in good faith, on a proper occasion, and for a legitimate purpose.

Conclusion:

Criminal defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) reflects a continued commitment to balancing two fundamental values: the protection of individual reputation and the preservation of freedom of speech and expression. While the law recognizes that a person’s reputation is an integral part of their dignity, it also acknowledges that not all criticism or expression can be curtailed in its name. By retaining key principles such as the requirement of harm to reputation, the role of intent, and well-defined exceptions like truth made for public good, the BNS aims to prevent misuse of defamation provisions.

At the same time, concerns remain regarding the criminalization of defamation and its potential chilling effect on free speech, particularly in a democratic society. Moving forward, the effectiveness of defamation law under the BNS will largely depend on its fair and cautious application by courts, ensuring that it is used as a shield against genuine harm rather than a tool to suppress dissent or legitimate criticism. Ultimately, a balanced and judicious approach is essential to uphold both personal dignity and democratic freedoms.

For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here

The Legal Quotient

Like this: