Defamation is a legal concept that involves making a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. It primarily takes two forms: libel, which refers to defamation in written or published form such as newspapers, social media posts, or blogs; and slander, which pertains to spoken defamation, including statements made in speeches, phone calls, or videos. For a statement to qualify as defamatory under the law, it typically must meet certain criteria: it must be false, as truth is generally a valid defense; it must be published or communicated to at least one third party; it should cause harm by injuring the individual’s reputation or social standing; and it must be made without adequate justification, particularly if done with malice or negligence, which can further support a defamation claim.

Defamation as an offence

Criminal defamation in India is governed by Sections 499 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860[now, 356(1),Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita] and 500 of the IPC, 1860 [now, 356(2)BNS]. Section 499 provides the legal definition of defamation, stating that a person is said to defame another if they make or publish any imputation concerning that person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of the individual.

The section also includes several exceptions, such as statements made in the public interest, those that are true and made for the public good, or opinions expressed in good faith regarding the conduct of public figures or public servants.

Section 500 IPC prescribes the punishment for criminal defamation, which may include imprisonment for a term that may extend up to two years, or a fine, or both. This provision is intended to act as a deterrent against reputational harm caused by false and malicious statements. The essence of criminal defamation lies in the intent or knowledge of causing injury to someone’s reputation. Even a single statement, if made with malicious intent and communicated to a third party, can attract criminal liability under these sections.

Constitutional Validity

In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Others, (2016), The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC [Now, 356(1)& 356(2)BNS], which criminalize defamation. The petitioners, including Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Arvind Kejriwal, and Rahul Gandhi, argued that these provisions violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court ruled that freedom of speech is not absolute, and protecting an individual's reputation is a legitimate restriction under Article 19(2). It held that reputation is a part of the right to life under Article 21, and criminal defamation laws serve a valid purpose in balancing free expression with the right to dignity and public order.

Interplay of Right to Freedom of Speech & Right to Reputation

In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994 INSC 455], main issue was Defamation and the right to privacy in journalism. In this case, the Supreme Court addressed defamation when a magazine published the autobiography of a death-row convict, Auto Shankar, containing defamatory remarks about public figures. The Court upheld freedom of speech but emphasized that reputation is a valuable right and individuals can seek compensation for harm caused by defamation. While no compensation was awarded in this case, the ruling reinforced the right to seek damages for defamation.

Defamation in the Age Of Social Media

With the rapid growth of digital communication, defamation has taken on a new and more complex dimension in the age of social media. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have transformed how information is shared and consumed, allowing individuals to reach massive audiences instantly. However, this ease of communication also increases the risk of false and harmful statements spreading rapidly, often without verification.

In legal terms, defamation on social media still falls under the traditional definitions of libel, as social media posts are considered published statements. If someone posts false information about another person that damages their reputation, it can amount to defamation, regardless of whether the person had a large following or not. Even likes, shares, and retweets can sometimes be seen as aiding in the publication of defamatory content, depending on the context.

Contemporary Challenges

In the age of social media, several key challenges have emerged in handling defamation cases. Virality and anonymity make it easier for harmful content to spread rapidly, with perpetrators often hiding behind fake profiles or remaining unidentified. The jurisdictional issues further complicate matters, as defamatory content can be accessed worldwide, raising questions about which court or law applies. Additionally, the tension between freedom of speech and reputation has become more pronounced, as balancing the right to express opinions with the protection of one’s reputation is increasingly difficult in the online environment. Lastly, the permanent digital footprint ensures that even if defamatory content is removed, screenshots or archived posts can continue to damage an individual’s reputation, often long after the original post is deleted.

Relevance in the Indian Context

In the Indian legal context, defamation is defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which includes any imputation made through words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representations intended to harm a person’s reputation. Social media posts clearly fall within this definition, making them subject to prosecution under Section 500 IPC, which provides for penalties of up to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The Information Technology Act, 2000(IT Act) and Defamation On Digital Platforms

The IT Act in India does not directly address defamation in the same way as IPC, but it plays a crucial role in regulating online content and defining the responsibilities of intermediaries like social media platforms. Section 66A, which once made sending offensive messages, including defamatory content, a punishable offense, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for being overly vague and infringing upon free speech. However, Section 79 of the IT Act provides safe harbor protection to intermediaries, meaning they are not liable for user-generated defamatory content unless they fail to act upon notification of such content.

The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 further obligate intermediaries to remove defamatory content once proper notice is given.

The IT Rules, 2021 impose additional obligations on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, requiring them to act quickly to remove defamatory or harmful content and appoint grievance officers to manage complaints and take down content within a specified timeframe.

In a recent case of ANI v. Wikimedia Foundation (Ongoing, 2025),The Delhi High Court directed the Wikimedia Foundation to take down Wikipedia content that labeled the news agency ANI as a "government propaganda tool," considering it defamatory. Challenging this order, Wikimedia approached the Supreme Court, asserting that such a takedown violates the right to freedom of speech and could set a troubling precedent for content regulation on online platforms. Recognizing the case’s implications for media freedom, though a remarkable legal precedent drawing clear line between The Right to Reputation and The Right To Freedom Of Speech, namely R. Rajgopal(1994) exists, The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter further.

Other Types Of Remedies Available

Civil Remedies: A person who is defamed can file a civil suit seeking monetary compensation for damage to their reputation, mental well-being, and social standing. Courts may grant compensatory damages, issue an injunction (Temporary or Perpetual) to stop further defamatory statements, or direct the defendant to issue an apology or retraction in appropriate cases.

Online Defamation Remedies: In cases of defamation on digital platforms, the victim can send a legal notice or complaint to the concerned social media platform or website requesting content removal. They can also file a complaint with the cyber cell or seek relief under the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021.

Defamation under IPC applies to online content, including social media posts, comments, and messages. While the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021 do not directly criminalize defamation, they play a key role in regulating how digital platforms handle such content. Social media platforms are required to remove defamatory material once they receive proper notification, but they are protected under the safe harbor provision as long as they comply with the prescribed guidelines. This creates a framework where the content creator can be held liable under IPC, while platforms must act responsibly to avoid legal consequences.