Defamation, criminal intimidation and insult

1. Criminal intimidation: section 351

Whoever threatens another, by any means, with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom he is interested, with intent to cause alarm to him, 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 (old s.503 IPC). “By any means” is new and covers threats by phone, message or social media. A threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the threatened person is interested is included. The illustration: A threatens to burn B's house to make B give up a civil suit.

• Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both (s.351(2), old s.506 first part).
• Threat to cause death or grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, an offence punishable with death, life or seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman: up to seven years (s.351(3), old s.506 second part).
• By anonymous communication or after concealing the source: up to two years in addition (s.351(4), old s.507).

The threat must be made with intent to cause alarm or to compel; a vague outburst in a quarrel, not meant to alarm, is not enough. In Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 INSC 683, the Court quashed an FIR alleging dacoity, insult and criminal intimidation, filed a year after the alleged incident, after examining whether the allegations, read as a whole, disclosed those ingredients, and observed that in such complaints the court should look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the bare words of the FIR.

2. Intentional insult: section 352

Whoever intentionally insults any person, and thereby gives provocation, intending or knowing it to be likely that the provocation will cause him to break the public peace or commit any other offence, is punishable with up to two years, or fine, or both (old s.504). The insult must be of a kind likely to provoke a breach of the peace; mere rudeness or discourteous words are not enough. Abuse in private, where no breach of peace is likely, may fall outside the section.

3. Statements conducing to public mischief: section 353

Section 353 (old s.505) punishes making, publishing or circulating any statement, false information, rumour or report, including through electronic means:

• to cause a member of the armed forces to mutiny or fail in his duty;
• to cause fear or alarm to the public whereby a person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquillity; or
• to incite one class or community to commit an offence against another (s.353(1)).

Section 353(2) punishes false information or rumours promoting enmity between groups, and s.353(3) raises the punishment to five years in a place of worship. The Exception protects a person who has reasonable grounds to believe the statement true and makes it in good faith without such intent.

4. Sections 354 and 355, briefly

s.354 (old s.508): inducing a person to do or omit something by making him believe he will become an object of Divine displeasure, such as sitting dharna at his door, up to one year. s.355 (old s.510): appearing drunk in a public place and causing annoyance, simple imprisonment up to twenty-four hours, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or community service.

5. Defamation: section 356(1)

Whoever, by words spoken or intended to be read, or by 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, his reputation, defames him, except in the excepted cases (old s.499). The elements: an imputation; concerning a person; made or published; with intent or knowledge of harm to reputation. Publication means communication to someone other than the person defamed; a letter sent only to the person himself is not defamation.

• Explanation 1: an imputation on a deceased person may be defamation if it would harm his reputation if living and is intended to hurt his family.
• Explanation 2: a company, association or collection of persons may be defamed.
• Explanation 3: an imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically may be defamatory (“Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”).
• Explanation 4: an imputation harms reputation only if it lowers, in the estimation of others, the person's moral or intellectual character, his character in respect of caste or calling, or his credit, or suggests his body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state.

6. The ten Exceptions

• 1. Truth for the public good. Truth alone is not a defence; the imputation must also be for the public good, a question of fact.
• 2. Public conduct of public servants, in good faith, so far as their character appears in that conduct.
• 3. Conduct of any person touching a public question.
• 4. Substantially true reports of court proceedings.
• 5. Merits of a decided case, and the conduct of parties, witnesses and agents in it.
• 6. Merits of a public performance: a book, a speech, an actor's performance.
• 7. Censure by a person in lawful authority: a judge, a head of department, a parent, a teacher.
• 8. Accusation in good faith to an authorised person, such as a complaint to a magistrate or to the accused's employer.
• 9. Imputation in good faith for the protection of interests of the maker or another, or for the public good.
• 10. Caution in good faith to one person against another, for that person's good or the public good.

Good faith needs due care and attention. In Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P., 1965 INSC 13, AIR 1965 SC 1451, a newspaper editor who published imputations of corruption against public prosecutors could not claim Exceptions 2 and 9, because he had made no proper inquiry before publishing.

Punishment: simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service (s.356(2), old s.500); the same maximum for printing or engraving defamatory matter and for selling it (s.356(3) and (4), old ss.501 and 502). Cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the person aggrieved (s.222 BNSS, old s.199 CrPC).

7. Subramanian Swamy: is criminal defamation valid?

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, 2016 INSC 427, (2016) 7 SCC 221, political leaders challenged ss.499 and 500 IPC as an unreasonable restriction on free speech. The Court upheld them. Reputation is part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21; “defamation” is an express ground of restriction in Article 19(2); and the right of one person to speak must be balanced with another's right to reputation. The Exceptions, the requirement of good faith and the need for the magistrate to examine complaints carefully before issuing process keep the offence within reasonable limits. The BNS has re-enacted the offence in s.356 with community service added.

8. Problem (January 2026)

A, the editor of a newspaper, goes out of the district and appoints X, a competent manager, who also acts as editor. In A's absence, X allows an article which turns out to be defamatory of P. Is A liable for the defamation?

Issue. Whether an editor is criminally liable for a defamatory article published without his knowledge while another person was in charge.

Law. Defamation under s.356(1) requires that the accused made or published the imputation with intent or knowledge of harm to reputation. Criminal liability is personal; there is no general vicarious liability in criminal law. The press registration law raises a presumption that the person declared as editor is responsible for what is published, but the presumption is rebuttable and applies only to the person named as editor. In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1991 INSC 302, (1992) 1 SCC 217, the Court held that a Chief Editor whose name is not printed as editor cannot be prosecuted on the presumption alone; his part in the publication must be shown.

Application. A was absent and had handed over editorial charge to X, a competent person, before the article came in. He neither wrote, approved nor knew of it, so he did not “make or publish” it and had no intent or knowledge of harm. If A remained the declared editor, the presumption may arise against him, but he can rebut it by proving his absence and the delegation. X, who allowed the article, made the publication and is the person answerable, subject to any Exception such as truth for the public good.

Conclusion. A is not criminally liable for the defamation; X is. A may still be answerable in a civil suit for damages, since the newspaper's owner and editor can be vicariously liable in tort.

How this is examined

Expect “Define defamation and explain its exceptions” (10 marks), the editor problem above (6 marks), and short notes on criminal intimidation or intentional insult. For defamation, give s.356(1), the four Explanations with the “honest man” illustration, all ten Exceptions in a line each, good faith with Sahib Singh Mehra, and Subramanian Swamy. For intimidation, give s.351(1), the three grades of punishment and the “by any means” change.