Defamation (Criminal) is the offence of making or publishing an imputation concerning any person with the intention of harming, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of that person. Under Indian law, criminal defamation is defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and punished under Section 500 IPC with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
Legal definition
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides a comprehensive definition:
Section 499: 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.
The section includes four explanations that expand the scope:
- Explanation 1: An imputation concerning a deceased person is defamation if it would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of their family or near relatives.
- Explanation 2: An imputation concerning a company, association, or collection of persons is defamation.
- Explanation 3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically constitutes defamation.
- Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation unless it directly or indirectly lowers the moral or intellectual character, or lowers the character in respect of caste or calling, or reduces the credit, or causes it to be believed that the body of the person is in a loathsome state.
The punishment under Section 500 IPC is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
New law equivalent: Under the BNS, 2023, Section 356 consolidates the definition (formerly Section 499) and punishment (formerly Section 500) of defamation. The ingredients, explanations, and exceptions are retained in substantially the same form.
The ten exceptions
Section 499 IPC provides ten exceptions that serve as complete defences to a charge of criminal defamation:
- Truth for public good — An imputation that is true and is made for the public good.
- Public conduct of public servants — Opinion on the public conduct of a public servant in the discharge of their public functions.
- Conduct touching any public question — Opinion on the conduct of any person touching any public question.
- Publication of court proceedings — A substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice.
- Merits of civil or criminal cases — Opinion on the merits of a case decided by a court.
- Merits of public performance — Opinion on the merits of any performance submitted to public judgment.
- Censure by authority — Censure passed in good faith by a person in lawful authority.
- Complaint to authority — An accusation preferred in good faith to an authorised person.
- Imputation in good faith for protection — An imputation made in good faith to protect one's own or another's interests.
- Caution intended for good of person or public — A caution intended in good faith for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good.
How courts have interpreted this term
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221]
In a landmark constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499-500 IPC. The two-judge bench held that the right to reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Court rejected the argument that criminal defamation has a chilling effect on free speech, holding that the ten exceptions provide adequate safeguards for legitimate expression. The Court observed: "Reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of free speech."
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632]
The Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy and the defence of truth in defamation. The Court held that a citizen has the right to safeguard their privacy, but this right is curtailed when the person becomes a public figure. For public officials, truthful reporting of their official conduct is protected and cannot constitute defamation. However, even for public figures, the publication of private facts unrelated to public functions can be defamatory.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600]
The Court held that for criminal defamation, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the accused made or published the imputation; (2) that the imputation was intended to harm, or the accused knew or had reason to believe it would harm, the reputation of the complainant; and (3) that the imputation does not fall within any of the ten exceptions. The burden of proving the exception lies on the accused.
Why this matters
Criminal defamation occupies a contentious position in Indian law, sitting at the intersection of free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to reputation (Article 21). India is among the relatively few democracies that retain criminal sanctions for defamation — many countries have decriminalised defamation, treating it as a purely civil wrong. The Supreme Court's decision in Subramanian Swamy (2016) settled the constitutional question by holding that criminal defamation is a valid, proportionate restriction on free speech.
For practitioners, criminal defamation is primarily encountered as a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC (Section 223 BNSS), since defamation is a non-cognizable offence and the police cannot file an FIR or investigate without a Magistrate's order. The complainant must file a written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who may take cognizance and issue process. This procedural requirement acts as a filter against frivolous complaints.
The ten exceptions are the primary battleground in defamation trials. The most frequently invoked defence is Exception 1 (truth for public good), which requires the accused to prove both that the imputation is true and that the publication was for the public good. Truth alone is not a defence under Indian law — unlike many common law jurisdictions where truth is an absolute defence. The additional requirement of "public good" reflects the IPC's position that even truthful statements can be defamatory if published with malicious intent and no legitimate public purpose.
Criminal defamation cases are increasingly arising in the context of social media posts, online reviews, and digital journalism, raising questions about jurisdiction, intermediary liability, and the application of the IT Act, 2000 alongside the IPC/BNS provisions.
Related terms
Related concepts:
Related rights:
Frequently asked questions
Is criminal defamation constitutional in India?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499-500 IPC, holding that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The right to reputation was recognised as a component of the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
Is truth a complete defence to criminal defamation?
Not on its own. Under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC (Section 356 BNS), the imputation must be both true AND made or published for the public good. Truth without public good is not a defence. The accused bears the burden of proving both elements.
Can a company or institution file a criminal defamation complaint?
Yes. Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC expressly includes imputations concerning companies, associations, or collections of persons within the definition of defamation. A company can file a criminal defamation complaint through its authorised representative.
What is the procedure for filing a criminal defamation case?
Criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence, so the complainant must file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC (Section 223 BNSS). The police cannot register an FIR or investigate without a Magistrate's order. The Magistrate examines the complainant on oath and, if satisfied, issues process to the accused.
Is there a time limit for filing a criminal defamation complaint?
Yes. Under Section 468 CrPC (Section 512 BNSS), a complaint for an offence punishable with fine only must be filed within six months, and for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to one year within one year, and for imprisonment between one and three years within three years. Since defamation under Section 500 IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, the limitation period is three years from the date of the publication.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.