Introduction
Freedom of expression allows individuals to express opinions, criticise public authorities and share information. However, this freedom does not extend to every statement that damages another person’s reputation. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, deals with criminal defamation and provides punishment for imputations made with the intention or knowledge of harming another person’s reputation. The provision replaces Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and came into force on July 1, 2024.
What Constitutes Defamation Under Section 356?
Section 356 covers defamatory imputations made through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations or any other form of publication. A person commits defamation when an imputation is made with the intention of harming another person’s reputation or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will cause such harm.
The provision also covers statements concerning deceased persons, companies, associations and groups of persons. However, an imputation concerning a deceased person attracts the provision when it would have amounted to defamation if the person were alive and is intended to hurt the feelings of their family or near relatives. Even an ironic or indirectly expressed statement may amount to defamation if it lowers a person’s reputation in the estimation of others.
However, mere criticism, disagreement or an unpleasant opinion does not automatically constitute a criminal offence. The intention, context and effect of the statement remain important considerations.
What Are the Ten Exceptions to Defamation?
Section 356 provides ten exceptions that protect certain statements made in good faith or for legitimate purposes. These exceptions ensure that defamation law does not become a tool to silence legitimate criticism or prevent individuals from reporting misconduct.
The first exception protects the publication of a true statement when its publication is required for public good. The second and third exceptions protect good-faith opinions concerning the conduct of public servants and matters involving public questions. The fourth exception covers substantially true reports of judicial proceedings, while the fifth protects good-faith opinions concerning the merits of cases decided by courts and the conduct of parties, witnesses and agents involved in them.
The sixth exception protects good-faith opinions concerning public performances submitted for public judgment. The seventh and eighth exceptions cover good-faith censure by persons having lawful authority over others and accusations made to authorities competent to act upon them. The ninth exception protects imputations made in good faith to safeguard legitimate interests, while the tenth permits good-faith cautions issued for someone’s benefit or public good.
These exceptions recognise that truthful public-interest disclosures, fair criticism, legitimate complaints and responsible warnings have an important place in a democratic society. However, the person relying on an exception must satisfy its legal requirements, including the applicable conditions of good faith.
What Is the Punishment Under Section 356?
Under Section 356(2), a person found guilty of criminal defamation may face simple imprisonment extending up to two years, a fine, both, or community service.
Section 356(3) deals with printing or engraving defamatory material with the required knowledge or reason to believe that it is defamatory. Section 356(4) penalises knowingly selling or offering such printed or engraved defamatory material for sale. Both offences carry simple imprisonment extending up to two years, a fine, or both.
Criminal defamation is generally classified as a non-cognizable and bailable offence under the BNSS. Ordinary defamation cases are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
How Is a Defamation Complaint Initiated?
Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governs the prosecution of criminal defamation. Ordinarily, a court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 356 only upon receiving a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the alleged defamation.
A special procedure applies when the alleged defamation concerns specified constitutional authorities, Ministers or public servants in relation to the discharge of their public functions. In such cases, the Public Prosecutor may file a complaint before the Court of Session with the previous sanction of the appropriate government. The provision also prescribes a six-month limitation period for filing such complaints.
This procedure ensures that criminal defamation proceedings are initiated through the prescribed legal process rather than being brought indiscriminately by unrelated persons.
Recent Case Laws
In Adaguru H. Vishwanath v. B.S. Suresha (September 7, 2026), the Karnataka High Court considered a petition seeking to quash criminal defamation proceedings under Section 356(2) BNS. The complaint arose from statements allegedly made during press conferences concerning the complainant, a Minister, in the context of the MUDA controversy.
The petitioner relied on the statutory exceptions to defamation, particularly the protection available for good-faith accusations made to competent authorities. However, the Court observed that questions concerning good faith, the applicability of the statutory exceptions and whether the statements actually lowered the complainant’s reputation required examination during trial. It dismissed the petition seeking to quash the proceedings without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.
In Krishna Kant Pandey and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (September 1, 2026), the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow stayed an FIR registered under Section 356(2) BNS and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioners challenged the registration of the FIR and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), which upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation.
The High Court found a prima facie case for interference and stayed the FIR pending further proceedings. However, the interim order did not finally determine the validity of the defamation allegations or the petitioners’ liability.
Conclusion
Section 356 attempts to balance an individual’s right to reputation with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. At the same time, Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on free speech, including restrictions relating to defamation.
The provision recognises that reputational harm can have serious consequences, but its ten exceptions protect good-faith criticism, public discussion, legitimate complaints and disclosures made for public good. Its application therefore requires courts to examine not merely whether a statement is unpleasant or damaging, but whether it satisfies the legal ingredients of defamation and falls outside the applicable statutory exceptions.
