Defamation
Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with defamation. 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, The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.---It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.---It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.---An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.---No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations.
(a) A says---"Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
Exception 1.---It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Exception 2.---It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Exception 3.---It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration.
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.
Exception 4.---It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.---A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Exception 5.---It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustrations.
(a) A says---"I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says---"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.
Exception 6.---It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.---A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Illustrations.
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z---"Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.
(e) But if A says "I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine". A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.
Exception 7.---It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Illustration.
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders, a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier are within this exception.
Exception 8.---It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration.
.
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father, A is within this exception.
Exception 9.---It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustration.
.
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business---"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty". A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
Exception 10.---It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
(2) Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
(3) Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 356, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 499 Defamation Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 222
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 501
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 222 Prosecution for defamation
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 501 Destruction of libellous and other matter
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 6 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation against the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine or both, or community service. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Defamation in any other case. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine or both or community service. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Printing or engraving matter knowing it to be defamatory against the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Printing or engraving matter knowing it to be defamatory, in any other case. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter against the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter in any other case. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Jeffrey J. Diermeier vs State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and cautiously only in the rarest of rare cases where a clear case for quashing is made out. When allegations in a defamation complaint raise disputed questions of fact regarding whether the accused acted in good faith and for public good (as required to establish protection under the Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC), such factual determinations cannot be made at the pre-trial, complaint-quashing stage without evidence, and the complaint cannot be quashed merely because defenses are pleaded. The determination of good faith and public good in defamation cases is a question of fact and evidence, requiring consideration of the nature of imputation, circumstances of its making, and status of the parties involved, which must be examined during trial.
On this section: Definition of defamation - requires imputation with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe it will harm reputation. Court clarified that harm to reputation is the essence of defamation offense.
-
Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs Prakash K
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A newspaper owner can be prosecuted for defamatory content published in the newspaper under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC if the elements of the offence are satisfied. The question of whether the respondent committed the acts constituting the offence with the requisite intention or knowledge cannot be determined at the stage of cognizance without examining evidence. The High Court erred in quashing the complaint against the newspaper owner under Section 482 CrPC without examining the substantive question of criminal liability. The trial court must proceed with the case and examine the evidence to determine the guilt of the respondent.
On this section: Defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person with intention or knowledge that it will harm reputation. The court analyzed the essential elements of defamation including the requirement of publication to persons other than the person defamed.
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Editor whose name is printed on a newspaper is presumed under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to be responsible for the selection of matter published in every portion of the newspaper, including editions published from different locations with separate resident editors, unless the Editor proves to the contrary. At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process on a complaint, allegations of knowledge and involvement of the Editor in the publication of defamatory content must be accepted as true; the High Court cannot quash the prosecution based on an assumption that the Editor lacked knowledge when specific allegations establishing such knowledge are pleaded in the complaint. The presumption of editorial responsibility is rebuttable, but the burden to rebut it arises only after the allegation is established or at trial, not at the stage of cognizance.
On this section: Defamation - used as basis for complaint against newspaper editors for publishing false and defamatory material about the complainant
-
Ram Swarup vs Mohd. Javed Razack
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Metropolitan Magistrate may take cognizance of a defamation complaint based on a prima facie case established through examination of the complaint and the complainant on oath, without mandatory referral to police under Section 156(3) CrPC. Furthermore, a complainant who is himself addressed with defamatory words has the legal standing to lodge a complaint under Section 199 CrPC, regardless of whether defamatory words were also used against a third party. The Magistrate's discretionary exercise of cognizance, once made based on prima facie case establishment, cannot be subsequently challenged on procedural grounds.
On this section: Definition and elements of defamation; the court examined whether the words used were defamatory in nature and whether they injured the reputation of the complainant
-
K. Kandasamy vs K. P. M. V. P. Chandrasekaran
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where parties to a criminal dispute voluntarily settle their differences and file a joint application under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. with supporting affidavits clearly setting forth the terms of settlement, the Court is empowered to grant permission to compound the offence. Upon such compounding, the accused party shall be acquitted of the charges. The court exercises discretion in granting such permission based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
On this section: Defamation offence under which appellants were originally charged and convicted; acquittal granted from this offence
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Defamation punishable with two years imprisonment or fine or both. Applied to the damage to petitioner's reputation caused by public arrest and false criminal allegations.
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: Punishment for defamation; cited as a compoundable offence in precedents
-
Ajay Walia vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Fair criticism of public figures and their conduct in matters of public interest, made in good faith and without defamatory intent, is protected under the exceptions to defamation law (Sections 499 IPC) and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution). An FIR for defamation cannot be validly registered when the complainant is not the defamed person. Mere dissatisfaction or disagreement with a statement does not constitute promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different classes under Section 505(2) IPC. When allegations in an FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute the necessary ingredients of an offence, the FIR and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Definition of defamation. The Court analyzed whether the post constituted defamation by examining whether it made an imputation concerning a person intending to harm or knowing that it would harm their reputation. The Court found that the post was fair criticism of public conduct and fell within the exceptions to defamation.
-
Satbir vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Statements made in good faith regarding the character and conduct of a person in the context of an official proceeding (such as objections invited by a government official during a selection process) are protected under the 5th Exception to Section 499 IPC and do not constitute defamation, even if the statements are not made in the context of a decided court case.
On this section: Definition of defamation - the court examined whether the affidavit filed by the accused constituted defamation under this section
-
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant, including a judge, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 166, and 167 IPC (offences committable only by public servants), previous sanction of the appropriate Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C is a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of such offences. Additionally, judicial acts performed by judges in exercise of their judicial powers are protected by Section 77 IPC, and official actions taken pursuant to judicial orders are protected by Section 78 IPC. Private criminal complaints against judges for acts performed in their judicial capacity are not maintainable, and the proper remedy is through appellate courts, not collateral criminal proceedings.
On this section: Defamation; court held factual misstatements in judicial pronouncements do not constitute defamation without imputations harming reputation
-
Konda Surekha vs Nagarjuna Akkineni
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Defamatory statements circulated digitally can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where they are accessed, and under BNSS, cognizance taken by a competent Magistrate is not vitiated by territorial jurisdictional irregularities.
On this section: Offence of defamation; court found prima facie evidence of derogatory imputation.
-
Basangouda vs Durgappa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint alleges defamatory statements made by one accused but does not contain specific allegations against another accused, and the sworn statement of the complainant does not establish that the second accused made any defamatory statements (but only that he drafted the complaint), the prosecution of the second accused would constitute abuse of process of law and the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of prima facie allegations.
On this section: Definition of defamation - making imputations concerning any person with intent to harm reputation or knowing it is likely to harm reputation
-
Sri Uday S/o Ramanath Naik vs Sri Durgappa S/o Durgappa Machennavar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the preliminary stage of cognizance under Section 482 CrPC, when the sworn statement of the complainant and documents produced establish a prima facie case of defamation by clearly stating that the accused made derogatory and libellous statements that lowered the complainant's reputation, the High Court cannot quash the proceedings. Questions of good faith, the circumstances under which imputations were made, the intention of the accused, and whether the imputations were made with due care and attention are matters of evidence and questions of fact to be examined during trial based on evidence, not at the preliminary stage. The accused cannot dispute questions of fact at the preliminary stage under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Definition of defamation - making or publishing any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing it is likely to harm his reputation
-
The Public Prosecutor, Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Guntur vs Konidela Pawan Kalyan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Village Volunteers appointed on a time-phrase basis do not fall under the definition of 'Public Servant' in Section 21 IPC, and general criticism of a policy or system does not constitute criminal defamation if it lacks specific intent to harm individuals and is protected by Article 19(1)(a).
On this section: Definition of Defamation; used to assess if the speech was derogatory.
-
H.d.f.c. Bank Ltd. through Mr. Jayanta Banerjee& ANR. vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 499, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Indian Penal Code does not contemplate vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not directly charged for commission of an offence. When a dispute arises from employment termination and the complainant seeks to convert it into a criminal case by making allegations of defamation and fraud against corporate officials without establishing their direct personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing, such FIR constitutes malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. The availability of civil remedies for employment disputes precludes the invocation of criminal law for the same cause of action.
On this section: Cited in FIR for defamation; court examined whether statements to RBI and NSE constituted defamation
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Decided under Indian Penal Code 500, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Defamation - cited as example of offence requiring specific person to file complaint
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 18.02.2025 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 324 and 356(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.02.2025, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and her uncle in filthy language. …
-
… Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2025 P.C. : Deshmane(PS) 1. This Petition is for quashing and setting aside the FIR registered vide C.R. No.1220/2024 dated 31.10.2024 under Sections 85, 64(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 with Kondhwa police station District-Pune. 2. Learned APP states that the charge-sheet in this 1 of 6 case is already filed. Learned …
Questions about Section 356
What have the courts held on Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Jeffrey J. Diermeier vs State of West Bengal (14 May 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 499, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition of defamation - requires imputation with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe it will harm reputation. Court clarified that harm to reputation is the essence of defamation offense. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
Is Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 356, section 356 BNS, section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 356 2 in hindi and bns 356 1 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jeffrey J. Diermeier vs State of West Bengal (14 May 2010).
What should I read with Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 499 (Defamation), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 356, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
- 316. Criminal breach of trust856 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.