Defamation, Criminal Intimidation & Insult (BNS) — Criminal Law I Notes

Defamation

A newspaper falsely prints that a respected doctor takes bribes to pass unfit patients. Whether or not he loses a single patient, his reputation — built over decades — is stained overnight. Reputation is a kind of property, and defamation is the crime of damaging it by a false imputation.

Defamation — s.356, BNS [old s.499 IPC]. Whoever, by words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm, the reputation of that person, commits defamation.

The essentials:

  1. An imputation concerning a person (a statement affecting his reputation);
  2. Made or published — communicated to at least one person other than the person defamed (publication is essential; telling only the victim is not defamation);
  3. With the intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that it would harm his reputation.

Key points:

  • Defamation may be of a deceased person (if it would harm his reputation and hurt his family), and of a company or collection of persons (an Explanation).
  • Unlike the English distinction, Indian criminal defamation makes no difference between libel (written) and slander (spoken) — both are the offence.

The exceptions — the heart of the topic. s.356 has ten exceptions (the defences), the important ones being:

  1. Truth for the public good — imputation of truth which the public good requires to be made. (Note: truth alone is not enough; it must also be for the public good.)
  2. Fair comment on public conduct of public servants and public men, touching their public functions.
  3. Fair comment on any public question.
  4. Reports of court proceedings.
  5. Fair comment on the merits of a case decided by a court, or the conduct of witnesses/parties.
  6. Fair comment on the merits of a public performance (a book, play, etc., submitted to public judgment).
  7. Censure by one in authority (an employer, a parent) in good faith.
  8. Accusation to a lawful authority in good faith.
  9. Imputation for the protection of one’s own or another’s interest, made in good faith.
  10. Caution conveyed in good faith for another’s good.

🧩 Worked example. A, the editor of a newspaper, publishes an article stating that P, a public official, took bribes. If the statement is false and A intended or knew it would harm P’s reputation, it is defamation (s.356) — and being published to readers, the publication element is met. A’s defence would be Exception 1 (truth for the public good) only if the imputation is true and its publication serves the public good; a false imputation, however sensational, is not saved. Contrast: a fair, honest comment on P’s public conduct, based on true facts, would fall within Exception 2 and be no offence.

s.356(1), BNS: “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… to defame that person.”

In Simple Terms: defamation is publishing something about a person that damages his reputation — and it is published the moment even one other person hears it. Truth for the public good, and fair comment on public matters, are defences; a false, harmful imputation is the offence.

flowchart TD
    DF["DEFAMATION s.356"] --> E1["An IMPUTATION concerning a person"]
    DF --> E2["MADE or PUBLISHED (to someone other than the victim)"]
    DF --> E3["Intent/knowledge it will HARM reputation"]
    DF --> EX["10 Exceptions: truth for public good; fair comment on public conduct/questions; court reports; good-faith censure/accusation/caution"]

Case Laws

  • Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) — upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (ss.499–500) against a free-speech challenge; reputation is part of Article 21.
  • Sahib Singh Mehra v State of U.P. (1965) — defamation of a determinate class/collection of persons is actionable.

Criminal intimidation, insult and public mischief

Criminal intimidation — s.351, BNS [old s.503 IPC]. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom he is interested, intending to cause alarm, or to cause him to do an act he is not legally bound to do, or to omit an act he is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the threat, commits criminal intimidation. Punishment up to two years (or up to seven years where the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to burn property, s.351(2)–(3)).

The essentials:

  1. A threat of injury to person, reputation or property;
  2. Intention to cause alarm, or to compel the victim to do/omit an act.

The offence protects a person’s peace of mind and freedom of action — the wrong is the coercive threat, whether or not it is carried out.

Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace — s.352, BNS [old s.504 IPC]. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or commit another offence, is punished up to two years.

Statements conducing to public mischief — s.353, BNS [old s.505 IPC]. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public leading someone to commit an offence against the State or public tranquillity, or to incite one class against another, commits this offence — increasingly important in the age of viral misinformation.

🧩 Worked example. A tells B, “Withdraw your police complaint against me, or I will burn your house down.” A has threatened injury to B’s property (indeed by fire) intending to compel B to do something (withdraw the complaint) he is not bound to do — criminal intimidation (s.351), and because the threat is to burn property, the aggravated form (up to seven years) applies. If instead A spreads a false rumour likely to cause public panic and set one community against another, that is a statement conducing to public mischief (s.353).

s.351(1), BNS: “Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

In Simple Terms: criminal intimidation is threatening someone — with harm to their body, reputation or property — to frighten them or force them to do (or not do) something. A related offence punishes insults meant to provoke a breach of the peace, and the spreading of rumours that cause public alarm.

flowchart TD
    CI["CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION s.351"] --> T["THREAT of injury to person/reputation/property"]
    CI --> INT["Intent to cause ALARM or to COMPEL an act/omission"]
    CI --> AG["Threat of death/grievous hurt/burning → up to 7 yrs"]
    P["Related"] --> S352["s.352 Insult to provoke breach of peace"]
    P --> S353["s.353 Statements conducing to PUBLIC MISCHIEF (rumours causing alarm)"]

Case Laws

  • Romesh Chandra Arora v State (1960) — a threat to publish a compromising photograph unless money was paid was criminal intimidation (with intent to cause alarm and to compel an act).
  • Manik Taneja v State of Karnataka (2015) — a mere expression of dissatisfaction (e.g. a Facebook post criticising police), without intent to cause alarm, is not criminal intimidation.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNS topics

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam