Defamation as a Crime and Not Merely a Civil Tort: A Critical

Citations 

Cases 

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)7 SCC 221 AIR 2016 2728 

In SMC Pneumatics v. Jogesh Kwatra (2004), 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1000

JNU professor vs wire article SCC2023 

Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab,1970 AIR 1372; (1970) 1 SCC 590; 1970 SCR (3) 913

Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Modi 2023 SCC Online SC 1188

Articles

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 19: freedom of speech & expression

 Acts 

The Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 

Books 

Prof. S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code, 21st edition by Central Publications

Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal. The law of torts, updated 26th edition by Lexis Nexis 

Journals 

DEFEMATION AND  RELATED LAWS IN INDIA A STUDY  – BY N.G PREMKUMAR, ADVOCATE 2023 (PUBLISHED IN GOJURIS.ON POWERED IN LEGAL EGALE 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEFAMATION LAWS ACROSS UK, USA & INDIA AUTHORED BY – SUVEER DUBEY White Black Legal Law Journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Defamation as a crime and not merely a civil Tort: A Critical study under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhitha 2023

BHUMIKA K.V 

ABSTRACT 

Defamation is the act of making a false statement about a person that injures their reputation in the eyes of society. In India, defamation is treated as a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence, it is the victim’s choice if they want to treat as a civil wrong or a criminal offence, if victim wants to opt to treat the defamation as a civil wrong the accused / offender should pay monetary compensation or if the victim opts to treat as criminal wrong, it will be the accused will be imprisoned. The main objective of this paper is to treat defamation exclusively as a criminal offence, as human dignity cannot be compensated by monetary measures, unlike material losses. The harm caused to a person’s reputation is irreparable; no amount of financial compensation will heal them.

Keywords – Defamation, criminal offence  , civil wrong  , victim , compensation 

CHAPTER -1

1 . INTRODUCTION 

The history of defamation can be traced back to Roman law and German law. Abusive chants were capital punishable in Rome. In early English and German law, insults were punished by cutting out the tongue. In the late 18th century, only the imputation of crime or social disease, or casting aspersions on professional competence, constituted slander in England. In Italy, defamation is criminally punishable, and truth seldom excuses defamation.

Every man has a right to have his reputation preserved inviolate. This right of reputation is recognised as an inherent personal right of every person as part of the right of personal security. It is a jus in rem, a right against the entire world. A man’s reputation is his property, more valuable than other property.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This includes a person to live with dignity; therefore, defamation amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. Under Indian law, defamation is treated as both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.

Article 19(1)(a) confers the right to freedom of speech and expression on all citizens.

Article 19(2) allows the state to make laws that impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Defamation is the wrong done to another’s reputation by words, signs, or visible representations. When a defamatory statement is made against a class of individuals and or a Defamation is the wrong done to another’s reputation by words, signs, or visible representations. When a defamatory statement is made against a class of individuals and or a group, it does not amount to defamation, for example, a publication made against a group of doctors or lawyers.

There are 2 types of Defamation

• Libel: Defamatory statement that is written, published, or visible.
• Slander: A defamatory statement that is spoken and causes loss of reputation.

 In India, defamation is considered both a civil wrong as well as criminal offence.

1.1. DEFAMATION UNDER TORT ( CIVIL WRONG )

Under Civil wrong (Torts ), defamation is defined as ‘ A false statement made about a person that harms their reputation, exposes them to public hatred, social or ridicule, or ridicule or adversely affects their personal, social or professional standing, for which the victim may seek monetary compensation or other civil remedies such as injunctions.

Defamation under tort is not defined; it is developed through judicial precedents. Here, the person who has been defamed  ( Plaintiff) has to prove the burden of proof that a defamatory statement was made, published or communicated to a third party.

Remedy under tort law is monetary compensation; the court may order the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the harm caused to their reputation. The amount of compensation is determined is not determined anywhere it is the discretion of the court to grant compensation, but the court might keep in mind to take into consideration factors such as the extent of harm caused, etc. In some cases, the court may also issue an injunction to prevent further publications or dissemination of the defamatory statements 

Defamatory statements amount to defamation; there are some defences available to the defendant, such as when the defendant makes such a true statement, or it is for the public good or a fair comment

1.2 DEFAMATION UNDER CRIMINAL LAW 

Under criminal law, section 356 of BNS 2023 ( Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita  ) defines defamation as whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representation, 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 a person. It amounts to defamation if defamation is made to a deceased person, company.

However, there are some exceptions to defamation under the act; they are that it does not amount to defamation is such an imputation is true and made for the public good, etc.

Punishment for defamation includes a simple imprisonment of 2 years, with a fine or community service.

CHAPTER -2

2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEFAMATION IN DIFFERENT    COUNTRIES

In English law, there are 2 statues pretraining defamation, namely defamation act 1952 and 1996. Libel is a defamatory statement made in an permeant form which is considered a criminal offence, and slander is a defamatory statement made by words spoken, which is not considered a criminal offence under English law

In the United States, defamation law differs significantly from its European counterpart, primarily due to the enforcement of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, the press, and expression. The United States introduced the “SPEECH Act” in 2010, a law that prevents American courts from recognising or enforcing foreign judgments related to libel and slander when those judgments do not provide as much protection for speech and press as afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and state laws.

In India, defamation is considered both a civil wrong and a criminal offence, and there is no distinction between libel and slander; both are considered defamation and a criminal offence too.

CHAPTER -3

3.WHY DEFAMATION SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE RATHER THAN A CIVIL WRONG 

Our dignity is irreplaceable and cannot be restored through monetary compensation. Can a person’s dignity ever be bought back with money?

Never. Many accused take defamation very lightly; they defame someone, pay compensation and simply move on. This cycle often repeats; however, defamation can deeply injure the victim and sometimes can cause mental trauma and emotional distress.

For this reason, defamation should be treated strictly as a criminal offence. When the law allows an offender to pay compensation only, it creates loopholes that encourage repeated misconduct. Imprisonment and a fine, on the other hand, sends a clear message that harming someone’s dignity is a serious offence, and the accused has to face serious repercussions.

CHAPTER -4

4. RECENT DEBATES ABOUT DEFAMATION

The Supreme Court recently wanted to decriminalise defamation, The “JNU Professor vs. The Wire” case involves former JNU Professor Amita Singh suing The Wire for defamation over a 2016 article that linked her to a controversial dossier calling JNU a “den of organized sex racket,” with the Supreme Court recently observing it’s time to decriminalize defamation while hearing The Wire‘s plea to quash the case. In September 2025, while hearing The Wire‘s plea, the Supreme Court bench (Justices M.M. Sundresh & Satish Chandra Sharma) remarked that it’s “time to decriminalise all this,” referring to criminal defamation, sparking broader debate.   which raised a crucial debate on balancing the protection of reputation with free speech in a democracy like India.

CHAPTER -5

5.CASE ANALYSIS ON DEFAMATION 

In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

The constitutional validity of the offence of abuse under the Indian Penal Code, now BNS, was questioned in a summons appeal under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the offence of defamation violates the Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court declared that reputation is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21. Criminal defamation is an reasonale restriction under Article 19(2)

In SMC Pneumatics v. Jogesh Kwatra (2004), 

The Delhi High Court issued the first Indian cyber defamation injunction, recognising defamatory emails and internet posts as actionable under defamation law.

Chaman Lal v State of Punjab (1970) 

In that decision, the Supreme Court outlined the rationale for establishing the sincere property and genuine exclusions in accordance with Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code now Bns According to the facts in that case, the President of the Municipal Corporation sent a letter that was critical of a service regarding the neighbourhood hospital. A complaint was made against the accused in accordance with Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The defendant said that if the accusations were true, she committed herself to them in good faith.

Imputations have been sent out in accordance with the proper authority.The Supreme Court accepted that, in accordance with the definition of an interest, a character’s interest “needs to keep actual then legit when communication is done of safety on the pastime concerning the person make it. If this is the case, then right worship is automatically included into proper creed, which naturally no longer calls for intellectual infallibility.

In the case of Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Modi Rahul Gandhi, in a public event in Karnataka, said that all MODI surnames are thieves like Nirav Modi, Narendra Modi, etc. Purnesh Modi, a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the opposite party, i.e., the Bhartiya Janta Party, filed a criminal defamation case against the Petitioner. His conviction led to temporary disqualification from Parliament, with ongoing appeals to the Supreme Court. This case raised questions on group defamation and political speech.

CHAPTER -6

6. CONCLUSION 

Our dignity is irreplaceable and cannot be restored by monetary compensation, where defamation can affect the social identity and psychological well-being, etc., civil remedies such as damages appear inadequate or serve as an injustice to the victim. Recognising defamation as a criminal offence exclusively makes the offender realise that there will be serious repercussions, not just monetary compensation. If defamation is treated both as a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence, there are high chances that many defamation cases and defaming a person is equal to killing them. There are so many cases where people commit suicide, too. As a part of Article 21 of our constitution, the right to life also includes the right to live with dignity, defamation should be treated as a criminal offence exclusively.