Cyber / online defamation complaint in India — BNS Section 356 (old IPC 499/500), private complaint (2026)
How criminal defamation works for online posts under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing IPC Sections 499/500): what counts as defamation, key statutory exceptions (including truth for public good), that cognizance normally needs a complaint by the aggrieved person under BNSS Section 222 (not a routine police FIR), Magistrate complaint path, evidence preservation (screenshots, URLs, Section 63 BSA / electronic records themes), civil defamation / injunction as a parallel track, and how this differs from cyberstalking / IT Act offences. Educational only — not legal advice.
WhatsApp opens with your question already written. You just tap send.
What Section 356 BNS covers
Section 356 BNS defines defamation as making or publishing an imputation concerning a person, intending to harm (or knowing/having reason to believe it will harm) that person’s reputation — by words, signs, or visible representations, including online posts, forwards, and videos when publication to others is shown. Punishment may extend to simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. Explanations cover imputations about deceased persons, companies/associations, ironic statements, and when reputation is said to be harmed. Old IPC Sections 499/500 are the search terms people still use; for conduct after 1 July 2024 the charging section is typically BNS 356.
Exceptions matter as much as the definition
Section 356 contains statutory exceptions — including truth for the public good, and several good-faith situations (for example peer reviews of official acts, good-faith opinions on public questions, and other listed exceptions). Whether an exception applies is fact-specific. Publishing something merely because it is trending, or tagging employers/family to maximise humiliation, often cuts against a clean ‘good faith’ story. This guide cannot decide if your post (or a post about you) fits an exception.
Is your situation a little different? Send your question on WhatsApp.
Write in Hindi or English · general guidance, not legal advice
Complaint route — BNSS Section 222
Under BNSS Section 222, a court ordinarily takes cognizance of an offence punishable under BNS s. 356 only upon a complaint by a person aggrieved (with limited proxies and a special Public Prosecutor route for certain public functionaries). That is why ‘file an FIR for defamation’ is often the wrong first mental model — many stations will direct you to a Magistrate complaint under the complaint-case procedure (examination of complainant under BNSS provisions corresponding to old CrPC s. 200). IT Act / other BNS offences (identity theft, sexual content, criminal intimidation, stalking-type harms) may still support police complaints where those distinct offences are disclosed — see our online-harassment and cybercrime guides.
Evidence to preserve immediately
Full-page screenshots with URL, username, date/time, and post ID if visible; screen recordings of profiles; downloaded copies; witness details who saw the publication; and any takedown correspondence with the platform. Electronic records should be kept in a way that authenticity can later be spoken to (Indian law on electronic evidence is now largely under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — advocates often still discuss old Evidence Act s. 65B habits; follow current BSA requirements with your advocate). Do not hack accounts or commit offences while ‘collecting proof’.
Civil track and platform takedown
A civil suit for damages and/or injunction is a separate path from criminal defamation. Platform reporting tools may remove content under their policies without deciding criminal guilt. Sending a legal notice is common before or alongside proceedings — our legal-notice guide covers format themes only.
Free speech and caution both ways
Criminal defamation survives as an offence after constitutional challenges to the old IPC provisions, but courts also protect fair criticism and public-interest speech within the exceptions. Using defamation complaints to silence victims of sexual harassment or public-interest whistleblowing can invite adverse comment. Conversely, viral false allegations destroy livelihoods — take advice early if reputation harm is serious.
How Adhiwakta can help
We do not draft defamation complaints, send notices, or appear before Magistrates. Adhiwakta is a facilitation platform, not a law firm. We do not file cases, appear before any authority, or promise any result. Use Ask Adhiwakta to describe your situation for general guidance from an independent advocate, or start with the AI helper to organise your facts and papers. Educational only — not formal legal advice.
Have a related question?
Frequently asked questions
- Which section covers online defamation after July 2024?
- Criminal defamation is under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (old IPC ss. 499/500). Procedure for taking cognizance is mainly BNSS s. 222 (complaint by the aggrieved person).
- Can I simply file a police FIR for defamation?
- Often no as the first path — cognizance of s. 356 BNS ordinarily requires a complaint by the aggrieved person before the Magistrate. Other cyber offences (if disclosed) may still support a police complaint.
- What evidence should I save?
- URLs, full screenshots with timestamps and usernames, screen recordings, downloads, and details of people who saw the post. Preserve electronic records carefully for authenticity under current evidence law (BSA).
- Is truth always a defence?
- Truth for the public good is a statutory exception — truth alone without the public-good element is not automatically a complete safe harbour under the criminal definition. Facts decide.
- Does Adhiwakta file defamation cases?
- No. We do not draft complaints or appear in court. Use Ask Adhiwakta or the AI helper for general educational guidance only.
Share Adhiwakta with someone who needs it
Send this page on WhatsApp — legal information in Hindi & English.