India Defamation Online: Claim, Clock and Takedown

India defamation online runs on two separate legal tracks that can proceed side by side. Defamation is a criminal offence under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and it is also a civil wrong for which a court can award damages or restrain publication.

The civil clock is one year from publication under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Platforms are pushed to act mainly through section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Rules of 2021.

The practical question is rarely "is this defamatory?" in the abstract. It is which route reaches the post, who must start it, how much time is left and what a platform will do without a court. Criminal law punishes the author. Civil law compensates the person harmed and can restrain publication. The intermediary rules decide when a platform loses its legal protection for hosting someone else's words.

This article reads the primary texts: the BNS and its procedure code, the Limitation Act schedule, section 79 of the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules and court judgments we could open. The India Code pages could not be opened in our session, so the wording of BNS section 356 and of the BNSS sections cited was read on a statute mirror (Advocate Khoj): check it against the official text before relying on it. It stays on defamation. It is information, not legal advice: Indian counsel should confirm any step that carries cost, risk or a deadline.

The short version

Defamation under BNS section 356 is an imputation, published by words, signs or visible representations, made with intent to harm reputation or with knowledge or reason to believe it will. Ten exceptions, including true statements made for the public good, can defeat it.
Two routes exist: a criminal complaint (maximum two years of simple imprisonment, a fine, both, or community service) and a civil suit for damages or an injunction. They have different clocks and different goals.
The civil clock is one year from publication. Whether content that stays online restarts it is disputed between courts, so assume it does not.
A platform acts on its own policies first. The statutory takedown duty is triggered by a court order or a government notice, and the timeline for that duty was shortened in 2026.

Three figures from the primary sources frame the rest.

Two yearsmaximum simple imprisonment for defamation under BNS section 356(2)

One yearlimitation for a civil libel claim, from the day the libel is published

Three hourstakedown window after a court order or authorized notice, per MeitY's 2026 FAQ

BNS section 356 as published on the India Code, Article 75 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and MeitY's FAQ on the 2026 amendment to the Intermediary Rules (G.S.R. 120(E), dated 10 February 2026), all read for this article.

Defamation under BNS section 356 covers any published imputation that harms reputation

The offence has two parts: an imputation concerning a person, and the mental element behind it. The BNS text keeps the structure of the old section 499. Whoever makes or publishes an imputation by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs or by visible representations, intending to harm the reputation of that person, or knowing or having reason to believe it will, defames that person.

Four explanations widen or narrow that core.

Deceased persons. An imputation about someone who has died can qualify if it would have harmed them alive and is meant to hurt the feelings of their family or near relatives.
Companies and groups. An imputation about a company, an association or a collection of persons as such can be defamation, so a business does not need a named individual to be the target.
Irony and alternatives. An imputation expressed ironically, or in the form of an alternative, can still defame.
What counts as harm. An imputation harms reputation only if, in the estimation of others, it lowers the person's moral or intellectual character, lowers their standing in their caste or calling, lowers their credit, or makes people believe their body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state.

The text names words, signs and visible representations. It does not name electronic media. Courts apply the same words to posts, and a Delhi High Court judgment of 5 February 2024 (Criminal M.C. 6347/2019) held that a retweet projected as the retweeter's own view can attract liability for summoning, and that a retweet would ordinarily amount to publication. Reach affects how much harm a retweet does. It does not decide whether there was publication.

Intent matters, and an embarrassing report is not enough

The mental element is not a technicality. In a judgment dated 5 August 2026 (Crl.M.C. 3558/2024, decided under the Indian Penal Code provisions that section 356 replaced), the Kerala High Court quashed a criminal complaint against the editors and a reporter of a daily over a news report on the complainant's arrest. It held that the essence of the offence is mens rea, and that embarrassment alone cannot support a prosecution. A report that substantially reflects an official record, with no independent imputation, was not treated as defamation. That is one High Court on one set of facts, but it shows how a complaint can fail early.

The ten exceptions decide most real disputes

Section 356 is followed by ten exceptions, and a post that fits one is not defamation even if it hurts. Truth alone is not enough. The first exception requires that the imputation be true and that publishing it be for the public good, which is a question of fact.

Exception	What it protects	Online example (scenario)	Limit
1. Truth for the public good	A true imputation published for the public good	A factual warning about a contractor's documented conduct	Truth without public good fails
2. Public servants	Good-faith opinion on conduct in public functions	A comment on an official's decision	Only what that conduct shows
3. Public questions	Good-faith opinion on conduct in a public question	A post on a candidate's stated policy	Only what that conduct shows
4. Court reports	Substantially true reports of proceedings	A summary of an open hearing	Must stay substantially true
5. Decided cases	Good-faith opinion on the merits of a decided case	A commentary on a judgment	Attacks on character beyond the case fall outside
6. Public performances	Good-faith opinion on work offered to the public	A book or film review	Only what the work shows
7 to 8. Authority and complaints	Censure by someone with lawful authority; accusations made to the proper authority	A complaint filed with a regulator	Good faith and the right recipient
9 to 10. Protection and caution	Good-faith statements to protect an interest or caution a person	A private warning to a business partner	Wide posting weakens the claim

The "good faith" requirement appears in most of them. A claimant should expect the defense to raise at least one exception, and a poster should be ready to show how the post fits it.

The criminal route punishes the author and is started by a complaint

BNS section 356(2) sets the punishment for defamation at simple imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both, or community service. Sub-sections (3) and (4) separately cover knowingly printing or engraving defamatory matter and knowingly selling it, each with up to two years of simple imprisonment or a fine or both. The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024, according to the Press Information Bureau. Section 358 of the BNS repeals the Indian Penal Code but saves penalties incurred and proceedings for offences under it, which are treated as continuing "as if that Code had not been repealed" (read on the mirror). A post published before 1 July 2024 is therefore analyzed under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and one published on or after that date under section 356. Which text applies to a post that stayed up across the date is a question for counsel.

Only the person aggrieved can start it

Under section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court takes cognizance of defamation only on a complaint from the person aggrieved. If that person is a child, of unsound mind, has an intellectual disability or is too ill or infirm to complain, another person may complain with the court's leave. The case starts with the complainant's filing before a Magistrate, not with a police report, and the complainant carries it.

Section 222 also creates a special track for defamation of high office-holders and public servants over their public functions. A Court of Session can take cognizance without committal on a written complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor, with prior sanction of the Central or State Government, and the Court of Session cannot take cognizance after six months from the date the offence is alleged to have been committed. The person defamed can still go to a Magistrate directly.

The accused is heard before cognizance

Section 223 of the BNSS provides that a Magistrate does not take cognizance without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. For a complainant, this means the first hearing is not a formality. For a poster, it is the earliest point to argue an exception or the absence of intent, and the Kerala judgment above shows the High Court's inherent powers can end a weak complaint later.

Constitutional challenges failed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of criminal defamation in a challenge to sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the procedure code provisions on complaints. In its judgment of 13 May 2016 it upheld sections 499 and 500 as constitutional, treating reputation as part of the right to life under Article 21. The closing conclusions of the judgment could not be opened in our session, so the outcome is stated from the Supreme Court Observer's account of the ruling. Counsel should read the full text. The 2023 reform kept criminal defamation in section 356.

The civil route compensates the person and can restrain publication

A civil defamation claim is a suit in tort. It seeks damages for the harm, an injunction that stops further publication, or both. Where the post sits on a website, courts see requests to have the content removed alongside the money claim. In one civil case before the Delhi High Court, the trial court reasoned that a plaintiff's right to seek removal of an online article continued even where the damages claim might be barred. On 16 July 2025 the High Court sent that question back for a reasoned finding (C.R.P. 198/2025) and left every contention open. The point is unsettled, not resolved in the plaintiff's favor.

Civil and criminal routes are independent. A person can pursue one, the other, or both, for the same post. They differ on four practical points.

Question	Criminal complaint	Civil suit	What it means
Goal	Punish the author	Damages or an injunction	Only civil can restrain content
Who starts it	The person aggrieved, by complaint	The claimant, by plaint	You carry the case in both
Clock	Three years by our reading of BNSS section 514	One year from publication	Civil expires first
Main risk	A hearing before cognizance, a quash petition	Cost and an early rejection on limitation	Both can fail early

The limitation clocks differ by route and a missed one cannot be revived

Time runs differently on each route. The civil period is short.

Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 lists "compensation for libel" with a period of one year, running from when the libel is published. Article 76 sets the same one year for slander, running from when the words are spoken or, if they are not actionable in themselves, from when the special damage results. A written post is libel in the ordinary sense, so Article 75 is the clock to plan around.

The criminal period comes from section 514 of the BNSS. It bars cognizance after six months for fine-only offences, one year for offences punishable with imprisonment up to one year, and three years for offences punishable with more than one year and up to three. Defamation carries a maximum of two years, so on our reading the three-year band applies. The same section says the period is computed from the relevant date, which for a complaint is the date of filing it under section 223. Section 515 of the BNSS starts the period on the date of the offence or, if the offence was unknown to the person aggrieved, on the first day it came to that person's knowledge. Both sections were read on the mirror, and counsel should confirm the count.

Does staying online restart the civil clock?

Courts have given different signals. In an order dated 14 July 2026 (CS SCJ 283/23), the Patiala House Courts rejected a defamation plaint as time barred and said that the mere availability of material online, and continuing damage from a wrong already done, are not a fresh publication. That is a single trial court order. The Delhi High Court in July 2025 recorded an argument that a continuing cause of action from website material would defeat the legislative policy of the limitation article, but that was counsel's submission, not a holding, and the case was remitted.

The safe reading follows. A new, separate act of publishing, such as a retweet or a fresh post by someone else, can be its own publication. Content that merely stays up is argued both ways. Anyone relying on a continuing cause should treat it as a litigation risk, not a plan.

Situation	Likely treatment	Basis read	Confidence
Original post stays online	Clock runs from first publication	Article 75; Patiala House order	Argued both ways
Someone reposts or retweets	Can be a separate publication	Delhi High Court, 5 February 2024	Stronger
The author edits the post to add new claims	Plausibly a fresh publication	Our judgment; no holding read	Unknown
Platform refuses or ignores your request	Does not restart the clock	Article 75 ties the clock to publication	Our reading

Statutory periods for a post, side by sideMonths. Periods only; start dates differ and are not charted

Civil libel (Article 75)12 months

Criminal (BNSS 514, three-year band)36 months

Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 schedule and section 514 of the BNSS, with the criminal band applied to a two-year maximum by our reading. Not a prediction for any case.

Platforms and intermediaries are reached through section 79 and the 2021 Rules

An intermediary is a platform or service that hosts content posted by others. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act gives it protection from liability for third party information, subject to conditions. Its function must be limited to providing access, it must not initiate the transmission, choose the receiver or modify the content, and it must observe due diligence and any guidelines the Central Government prescribes. The protection is lost if the intermediary conspired in, abetted, aided or induced the unlawful act, or if, after receiving actual knowledge or a notice from the appropriate Government or its agency, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the material.

What the Rules say about actual knowledge

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 fill in the process. Rule 3(1)(d), in the consolidated text updated to 6 April 2023, says that an intermediary which receives actual knowledge through a court order, or a notification from the Appropriate Government or its agency under section 79(3)(b), must not host or publish the unlawful information. It had to remove or disable access no later than thirty-six hours after receipt. Rule 3(1)(d) lists defamation among the grounds on which information can be unlawful, together with contempt of court and incitement.

A private complainant does not appear in that text. The two triggers are a court order and a government notice. That is why a platform may decline to remove a post on a bare allegation of defamation, and why a court order carries weight with the intermediary.

The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India also dealt with section 79, but the part of its text on that point could not be opened for this article, so it is not described here. Rule 3(1)(d) itself, as read, ties the duty to the same two triggers.

The 2026 amendment shortened the clocks

MeitY's FAQ on the Intermediary Guidelines Amendment Rules, 2026 (G.S.R. 120(E), dated 10 February 2026, in force on 20 February 2026) says the Rule 3(1)(d) window was reduced from 36 hours to 3 hours. It says the trigger is a court order or a reasoned intimation from an authorized officer, and that for police administration the officer must be at least a Deputy Inspector General of Police specially authorized by the Appropriate Government. The FAQ page is the source for the 2026 figures here: the notified text of the amendment was not opened for this article. The FAQ does not say whether the three hours applies to every category of unlawful information or mentions defamation, so check the notified rules before relying on it for a defamation order.

The same FAQ says the general grievance period under Rule 3(2) changed from 15 days to 7 days, and the period for Rule 3(1)(b) grievances needing removal from 72 hours to 36 hours.

A takedown request moves through the platform first, then the grievance officer, then a court

Rule 3(2)(a) requires a Grievance Officer who acknowledges a complaint within twenty-four hours and resolves it within the period set by the Rules, which MeitY's FAQ says is now seven days. That officer is the intermediary's designated complaint contact, and the decision on your claim stays with the platform. Rule 7 adds that an intermediary which does not observe the Rules loses the protection of section 79(1). The last proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) adds that removals made voluntarily under Rule 3(1)(b), or on grievances received under Rule 3(2), do not count as a breach of the conditions of section 79(2)(a) or (b).

A takedown sequence for a post you believe is defamatory

Preserve the evidence firstCapture the post, the account, the URL and the date and time before anything changes. Removal makes proof harder.
Use the platform's own reportReport under its defamation, harassment or legal policy. This is the fastest route when it works and needs no court.
Escalate to the Grievance OfficerSend a written complaint through the platform's published India contact. Keep the acknowledgment and the date.
Decide between civil and criminalA civil suit can seek an injunction. A criminal complaint punishes but does not itself remove content.
Serve a court order on the platformWith a court order, Rule 3(1)(d) triggers the removal duty. Send it to the platform and record the compliance date.

A court order against a post is separate from a request to a search engine to de-list a result, and this article does not cover de-listing. Where a post cannot be removed, the options and their limits are laid out on the remove negative content page.

A decision table shows which route reaches the post

Route	What it can remove	Speed	Risk
Platform report	A post that breaks the platform's terms	Days, usually	Low; refusal is common without a legal basis
Grievance Officer complaint	A post, on the platform's decision	Statutory acknowledgment and resolution periods	Low; can end in a refusal
Civil suit with injunction	The post, by court order, plus damages	Weeks to months, usually	Cost, limitation, publicity
Criminal complaint	Nothing directly; punishes the author	Slow	Hearing before cognizance, quash petition
Government notice	A post, on the Government's decision	Set by the Rules	Not a private complainant's route

The last row is a route the State controls. A private party cannot start it, and we mention it only so the table is complete.

A worked scenario shows how the clocks and routes fit together

The following is an invented scenario with generic parties, built on stated assumptions. An Indian consultancy owner finds a post on a social platform, published on 10 March 2026, claiming the firm took client money and vanished. The claim is false. The poster is identifiable. The owner learns of it on 2 June 2026.

Day 0 to 3. Capture the post and the account details, and note that the earliest publication date is 10 March 2026. Do not reply publicly in a way that repeats the claim.
Week 1. Report to the platform and send the Grievance Officer complaint. This costs little and sets a record. It does not stop any clock.
By week 2. Counsel decides between a civil suit seeking an injunction and damages, a criminal complaint, or both. On our reading, the civil period is one year from publication, so it would end around 10 March 2027, subject to counsel's counting. The criminal band is three years from the offence or, on our reading of BNSS section 515, from the day the owner learned of it.
If the platform refuses. A court order is what activates Rule 3(1)(d). The order, not the complaint, creates the statutory removal duty.

Our assumptions: one author, one platform, no republication, and no earlier notice. A repost by another account would add a separate publication date to analyze.

Edge cases that change the plan

Several situations in the primary texts alter the route. Explanation 2 already lets a company be the target, and who files for it is a procedural point for counsel.

A public servant is the target. The special Court of Session track exists for defamation of high office-holders and public servants over their public functions, but it carries a six-month window and needs sanction. An ordinary citizen complaining about a public servant's conduct, in contrast, can rely on the exceptions for public conduct if the opinion is in good faith.

The author cannot be identified. Unmasking an anonymous poster is a court process and was not read for this article. The takedown route can still work without a name, because the court order is served on the platform.

Content has spread to other sites. Each site hosting a copy is a separate publisher and a separate takedown. This is where a consistent evidence file saves time.

The next step is evidence, a deadline and Indian counsel

If this is happening to you now

Capture the evidence today, note the first publication date and take the one-year civil period as your working deadline. Counsel in India decides the route. We can review what is visible about you in search results and AI answers before any filing, through a private audit.

Reputation Partners works on the visibility side of a case and leaves the legal choices to your own counsel.

Questions people ask

Is defamation still a crime in India after the Indian Penal Code was replaced?

Yes. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code, and section 356 carries the offence forward in the same structure: the definition, four explanations and ten exceptions. The punishment in sub-section (2) is simple imprisonment up to two years, a fine, both, or community service. The criminal law reform did not remove it.

Does telling the truth protect me from a defamation case?

Not by itself. The first exception requires that the imputation be true and that publishing it serve the public good, which is a question of fact for the court. A true statement made only to embarrass someone can still fall outside the exception. Other exceptions need good faith, and good faith is judged on how and why the statement was made.

Can I sue a platform for what a user posted?

Section 79 of the IT Act protects an intermediary from liability for third party content, if its function is limited to access and it observes due diligence. The protection is lost if it conspired in or aided the act, or fails to remove content after actual knowledge or a government notice. Most disputes therefore start with the author and a court order to the platform.

Does deleting the post end my exposure?

Deletion does not undo publication. Article 75 ties the one-year civil period to the date the libel is published, and BNS section 356 is about making or publishing the imputation. A deleted post can still be evidence of what was published, so a poster should keep records and speak to counsel before acting.