IPC 499 / 500 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Criminal defamation is the provision that makes damage to reputation a criminal matter rather than only a civil one, and it remains a live and frequently used remedy in India. Under the BNS the definition and the punishment are consolidated into a single Section 356, and this is one of the provisions the BNS genuinely changed — it added community service as a sentencing option, the first time Indian criminal law has provided for it.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused made or published an imputation concerning another person, by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs, or by visible representations
• the imputation was made with the intention of harming, or with knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm, that person's reputation
• the case does not fall within any of the exceptions the section provides

What changed from the IPC

Two changes, one structural and one substantive. Structurally, what the IPC split between Section 499 (the definition and its exceptions) and Section 500 (the punishment) is now consolidated into BNS 356, with the definition at 356(1) and the punishment at 356(2). Substantively, the punishment gained a new option: simple imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both, or community service. Community service did not exist as a punishment under the IPC at all, and defamation is one of only six offences in the BNS for which it is available. The exceptions that make an imputation non-defamatory — truth published for the public good, fair comment on the conduct of a public servant, fair comment on any matter of public importance, reports of court proceedings, and the others — are carried over.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

Criminal defamation under BNS 356 must be separated from a civil suit for damages, which proceeds independently in the civil courts on a different standard and with a different remedy; the two can and often do run in parallel. Within the criminal law, an insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace is dealt with under BNS 352 and requires no publication to anyone else, whereas defamation turns on publication to a third party. Where the imputation is made against a woman and is intended to insult her modesty, BNS 79 may apply. Where statements are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public, or promote enmity between groups, the far more serious provisions at BNS 353 and 196 come into play.

How the case proceeds

Defamation is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and, importantly, it is one that a court takes cognizance of on a complaint by the person aggrieved rather than on a police FIR. That procedural feature shapes everything: the complainant files before the magistrate, the magistrate examines the complainant and any witnesses, and only then decides whether to issue process. The offence is compoundable, and a substantial proportion of these matters are settled, frequently on an apology or a retraction.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

The threshold question is publication — whether the imputation was communicated to someone other than the person defamed, since a statement made only to that person is not defamation however offensive. Where the statement is online, the evidence consists of the post or message itself, archived or screenshotted with its metadata, together with material establishing who published it, and the certificate required for electronic records is frequently the point on which such cases are lost. Where the exceptions are relied on, the evidence supporting truth and public good has to be assembled independently: documents, records and witnesses establishing the underlying facts. Evidence of actual harm to reputation, while not strictly an ingredient, weighs in practice on both the outcome and the sentence.

How courts approach sentencing

Simple imprisonment which may extend to two years, or a fine, or both, or community service. The addition of community service gives courts an option that did not exist under the IPC and is likely to be used in first-time and minor cases. In practice, custodial sentences for defamation are uncommon, and many matters end in compounding, an apology or a retraction.

Defences that commonly apply

The exceptions are the principal defences and they are where these cases are decided. Truth published for the public good requires both limbs. Fair comment in good faith on the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of their functions, and on any matter of public importance, protects a great deal of legitimate criticism. Substantially true reports of court proceedings, and comment on the merits of a decided case, are also protected. Beyond the exceptions, the absence of publication to a third party is a complete answer, as is the absence of the intention, knowledge or reason to believe that reputation would be harmed. Where the imputation concerns a class or a group rather than an identifiable person, whether the complainant can show it referred to them is often decisive.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The process begins with a complaint to the magistrate rather than with a police investigation. The magistrate examines the complainant and any witnesses before deciding whether to issue process, and that stage is the first opportunity for the accused to have the proceedings stopped. If process issues, the accused appears, the substance of the accusation is explained and the matter proceeds as a summons case. Because the offence is compoundable, settlement is available at any stage, and applications to quash on the ground that the imputation falls squarely within an exception are commonly filed before the High Court.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve the statement complained of in its complete and original form, with its date and context, since a partial extract usually reads very differently from the whole. For online material, archive the page rather than relying on a screenshot alone, and preserve the account and posting records, keeping in mind the certification requirements that apply to electronic evidence. Where an exception is to be relied on, assemble the documents establishing the truth of the imputation and the public interest served by publishing it, since both limbs must be proved. Where the statement concerns a public servant or a matter of public importance, keep the underlying records that prompted it. Any correspondence in which an apology, retraction or clarification was offered or demanded should be preserved, as it is frequently central to how the matter is resolved.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The first thing to establish is whether the imputation falls within one of the exceptions, because those are where most defences in this area succeed. Truth alone is not a complete answer under Indian law — the first exception requires that the imputation be true and that its publication be for the public good, and both limbs must be established. Where the statement concerns a public servant's conduct in the discharge of their functions, or a matter of public importance, the fair comment exceptions are the relevant route. Because the process begins with a private complaint rather than an investigation, the issue of process stage is the first real opportunity to challenge the proceedings.

Common misunderstandings

"Truth is a complete defence."
Not by itself under Indian criminal law. The first exception requires both that the imputation is true and that its publication was for the public good. Truth alone, published for a private purpose, does not automatically bring a case within the exception.

"Defamation was decriminalised."
It was not. Criminal defamation survives as BNS 356, and its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016).

"The punishment is unchanged."
The imprisonment and fine are unchanged, but community service was added as an option, and defamation is one of only six BNS offences for which it is available.

"The police will register an FIR."
Ordinarily not. Defamation is non-cognizable and proceeds on a complaint by the person aggrieved to the magistrate rather than through a police FIR.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 356 — Defamation
• BNS 352 — Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (IPC 504)
• BNS 353 — Statements conducing to public mischief (IPC 505)
• BNS 196 — Promoting enmity between groups (IPC 153A)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.