BACK TO SECTIONS(2016) 7 SCC 221
BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableMagistrate First Class
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 499/500 to BNS 356.
2
Community service added as an alternative punishment — a significant reform for minor defamation cases.
3
Exception for publication in good faith of information received from another still present.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
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... to defame that person.
Legal Commentary
Section 356 is the BNS's defamation provision — retaining criminal defamation as an offence in India, a position that has been controversial because most democracies have decriminalised defamation, treating it as a civil wrong. The section makes a broad range of imputations — false statements about a person communicated to a third party that harm their reputation — a punishable offence. Defamation can be through spoken words, printed words, signs, visible representations, or any other form of communication. The BNS adds an important reform: community service is now listed as an alternative punishment, potentially replacing short jail terms in minor cases. This is consistent with the BNS's overall philosophy of proportionate punishment. The section's extensive set of exceptions — truth (for public good), good-faith opinion on public conduct, fair criticism of published works, reports of court proceedings — preserve the space for legitimate journalism, criticism, and satire. The non-cognizable status means police cannot arrest without a magistrate's warrant, and the case proceeds through the magistrate's complaint pathway — a procedural filter that reduces the risk of using criminal defamation as a harassment tool. The constitutionality of criminal defamation was challenged in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), where the Supreme Court upheld it as a reasonable restriction on free speech, balancing reputation rights against Article 19(1)(a).
Landmark Precedents
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of IPC 499/500 (now BNS 356) as a reasonable restriction on free speech, rejecting a challenge that would have decriminalised defamation.
Case Simulations
"A social media post falsely accusing a politician of corruption with no factual basis — defamation under BNS 356."
"A newspaper article accurately reporting on a public official's financial irregularities — protected by the truth exception."
"A Yelp-style review that falsely claims a restaurant has rats and made the reviewer ill, when no such thing happened — defamation."
"A legal commentator on a YouTube channel who gives an honest critical opinion of a court judgment — protected as fair criticism."
Expert Insights
Yes, but with a qualification: the truth must be published 'for the public good'. If a true statement serves no legitimate public interest and is simply intended to harm someone's reputation, it may still be defamatory in some circumstances. In practice, courts give considerable latitude to truth as a defence.
BNS 356 has extensive exceptions that protect legitimate journalism. Accurate reporting on a public official's conduct in their official capacity, fair criticism of public figures, and good-faith reporting that turns out to be wrong (if based on reasonable grounds) are protected. The section specifically protects comments made in good faith on the public conduct of public servants.
Yes. 'Words intended to be read' and 'signs or visible representations' include online posts, tweets, and Instagram stories. Social media defamation is fully within the scope of BNS 356.