Section 356 BNS: Defamation Law Meaning, Punishment & Complete Analysis

Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 deals with the important offence of criminal defamation. It punishes anyone who damages another person's reputation through words, signs, or visible means. This section replaces the older Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 499, bringing updated language while keeping the spirit intact.

Understanding defamation in BNS is important because reputation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. With the rise of media and internet use, defamation case law now covers both offline and online content.

People are curious about section 356 BNS punishment, whether 356 BNS is cognizable or not, whether 356BNS is bailable or not, and the overall differences between defamation under BNS and IPC.

This article explains section 356 BNS act fully, including its bare text, interpretation, essential elements, nature, scope, comparison with IPC, judicial views, key cases, impact, and conclusion. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

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.

Illustrations.

(a) A says---"Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A 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.

(c) 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.

Exception 1.---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.

Exception 2.It is not defamation to express in 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.

Exception 3.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.

Illustration.

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.

Exception 4.---It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court, or of the result of any such proceedings.

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

Exception 5.---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, 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.

Illustrations.

(a) A says---"I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

(b) But if A says---"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.

Exception 6.---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 submitted 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.

Illustrations.

(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.

(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.

(d) A says of a book published by Z---"Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.

(e) But if A says "I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine". A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.

Exception 7. 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.

Illustration.

A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders, a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier are within this exception.

Exception 8.---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.

Illustration.

If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father, A is within this exception.

Exception 9.---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.

Illustration.

(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business---"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty". A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.

Exception 10.---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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(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.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download PDF on Section 356 BNS

Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines criminal defamation. It states that anyone who, through words, signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes an imputation concerning another person intending to harm their reputation, is liable for punishment. The BNS replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is the new criminal code of India.Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

• Defamation Defined:
  Under section 356 BNS, defamation is any act of making or publishing an imputation (a statement that harms someone's reputation) with the intent or knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
• Methods of Defamation:
  Defamation can happen through spoken words, written words, signs, or visible representations.
• Intent and Knowledge:
  The key element is the intent or knowledge that the imputation will harm the person's reputation.
• Example:
  If a journalist publishes a false article claiming a businessman is embezzling funds, intending to harm his reputation, they could be held liable for defamation under BNS section 356.
• BNS and IPC:
  The BNS, which replaced the IPC, introduces a new criminal code with changes in definitions and offences. Section 356 deals with defamation, a concept present earlier under IPC but now updated.

Thus, defamation in BNS continues the protection of reputation with clearer, modernized rules.

Section 356 BNS : Essential Elements

To establish defamation under section 356 BNS act, four elements must be satisfied:

• Imputation: A statement or representation that harms a person's reputation.
• Publication: The imputation must be communicated to someone other than the affected person.
• Intent or Knowledge: The maker must intend or know the statement will harm the person’s reputation.
• Reputation Harmed: The imputation must lower the person's reputation in society.

Without all these elements, no offence under section 356 BNS 2023 occurs. Importantly, truth alone is not a defense unless the statement is for the public good.

The nature and scope relating to section 356 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is as under -

• 356 BNS is cognizable or not:
  It is non-cognizable, meaning police cannot arrest without prior permission.
• 356BNS bailable or not:
  The offence is bailable, meaning the accused has a right to bail.
• Section 356 BNS punishment:
  Punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
• Compoundability:
  Defamation under section 356 BNS exception allows parties to settle with the court’s approval.

The scope of defamation under BNS is broad. It covers individuals, companies, deceased persons (if aimed at hurting their family), and online/offline publications. Section 356 BNS illustration shows it applies to journalists, social media users, and public speakers too.

Thus, the defamation section in BNS balances free speech and reputation rights carefully.

Comparison Table: Section 356 BNS vs IPC Section 499

Before BNS, similar conduct was covered under Section 499 Indian Penal Code (IPC). The transition to Section 356 BNS preserved the structure while fitting into the reformed legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Feature	IPC Section 499	Section 356 BNS 2023
Definition of Defamation	Yes	Yes (modernized language)
Punishment	Up to 2 years, fine, or both	Same
Cognizable or Non-Cognizable	Non-cognizable	Non-cognizable
Bailability	Bailable	Bailable
Compoundability	Yes	Yes
Applicable to Deceased Persons	Yes	Yes
Scope	Limited online clarity	Updated for digital age

Section 356 BNS : Judicial Interpretation 

The judiciary sees defamation BNS section 356 as vital to balancing Article 19(1)(a) (free speech) with Article 21 (right to reputation).

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation as constitutional, saying that free speech is not absolute.

Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (1970) clarified that any imputation lowering someone’s standing in society qualifies as defamation.

Courts insist that defamation under BNS must be carefully proven. Minor annoyance or fair criticism is not defamation unless reputation damage is real.

Thus, under section 356 BNS, courts protect real reputations but ensure that honest opinions, fair reporting, and judicial records are not unfairly punished.

Section 356 BNS : Landmark Cases 

The Indian judiciary has clarified the application of laws similar to section 356 BNS through past rulings under IPC Sections. The landmark Judgments relating to the section are as follows-

1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

In this landmark case of Subramanian Swamy, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of defamation laws in India. Dr. Subramanian Swamy had challenged criminal defamation, arguing it violated free speech. However, the Court ruled that the right to reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21. It said that protecting personal dignity is as important as allowing free expression. This case confirmed that section 356 BNS punishment for harming someone’s reputation remains constitutionally valid.

2. Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (1970)

Here, the Court emphasized that any false statement that lowers a person's respect in society can amount to defamation. The judgment made it clear that the harm must be to the social standing of the person. Even indirect harm to reputation could attract penalties under defamation BNS section 356. The case remains an important guide on what actually qualifies as harm under defamation law.

3. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Popularly known as the “Auto Shankar Case,” this ruling protected the right to privacy and reputation. The Court ruled that unauthorized publications about a person’s private life can amount to defamation unless based on official public records. It explained that private details cannot be exposed without consent. Under defamation section 356 BNS, this case highlights when media freedom crosses into illegal defamation.

4. T.V. Ramasubba Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohideen (1955)

In this case, the Court clarified the role of truth as a defence in defamation. It ruled that truth alone is not enough to escape liability. The truth must be spoken or published for the public good to be protected. This principle is critical even under section 356 BNS today, where public interest justifies truthful statements but personal attacks without purpose do not.

5. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)

The Supreme Court, in this case, stressed that society must tolerate different viewpoints. It ruled that not every offensive comment or disagreement amounts to defamation. Only serious harm to reputation can invite punishment under section 356 BNS act. This judgment reinforced the need to protect open dialogue and avoid criminalizing every minor social disagreement.

These judgments continue to guide how under section 356 BNS courts interpret free speech and defamation.

Section 356 BNS : Impact 

Section 356 BNS 2023 modernizes how Indian law protects reputations. It recognizes the importance of digital communication and social media in shaping public opinions.The biggest impacts are:

• Clear definitions prevent misuse of defamation laws.
• Protection extends to deceased persons' dignity and organizational reputation.
• Section 356 BNS exception encourages fair criticism, saving genuine public interest discussions.
• Minor cases are made compoundable, promoting faster resolution.
• Truth remains a defence if intended for the public good.

Overall, the defamation section in BNS brings a fair balance between personal dignity and free expression.

Conclusion 

Section 356 BNS reaffirms that in a democracy, while free speech is vital, reputation must be protected too. It modernizes defamation laws to address today's digital realities while preserving important exceptions.

Defamation under BNS covers traditional defamation as well as social media, journalism, corporate communication, and online posts. Queries about section 356 BNS punishment, 356 BNS is cognizable or not, and 356 BNS bailable or not show rising public interest.

The law rightly ensures that under section 356 of BNS, malicious attacks on reputation are punished, but good-faith expressions and public interest communications remain safe.

Thus, section 356 BNS 2023 represents a careful balance — protecting dignity without stifling open dialogue, and strengthening India's justice system for the digital age.