Punishment for defamation
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for defamation. Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 500, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 356 Defamation Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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: Punishment for defamation. Court examined whether allegations in complaint constituted offense under this section read with Section 34 (common intention).
-
Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs Prakash K
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: Provides punishment for defamation. The court clarified that this section applies to persons who make or publish defamatory imputations with requisite intention or knowledge.
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
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
-
K. Kandasamy vs K. P. M. V. P. Chandrasekaran
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
-
Baidyanath Raut vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person cannot be held liable for defamation under Section 500 IPC for filing a criminal case on the direction of his employer or official authority, as such filing is an official act done in the capacity of the person's position and not a personal act of defamation. The defamatory character of an act must be attributable to the personal conduct of the accused person, and not merely to the fact that a criminal case was filed on official direction.
On this section: Defamation - The court examined whether the petitioner's act of filing the FIR constituted defamation under this section and concluded that no offence was made out as the act was not personal to the petitioner but was done on bank's direction.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
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
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
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: Punishment for defamation. The Court held that since the FIR did not constitute defamation, the punishment provision was not applicable. The Court also noted that the complainant was not the defamed person and therefore could not initiate proceedings under this section.
-
Satbir vs State of Haryana
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: Punishment for defamation - the trial court convicted the accused under this section; the appellate court reversed the conviction
-
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana
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
-
Basangouda vs Durgappa
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: Punishment for defamation - imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both
-
Sri Uday S/o Ramanath Naik vs Sri Durgappa S/o Durgappa Machennavar
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: Punishment for defamation - imprisonment up to two years or fine or both
-
H.d.f.c. Bank Ltd. through Mr. Jayanta Banerjee& ANR. vs State of Bihar& ANR.
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 false statements caused criminal defamation
-
The Public Prosecutor, Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Guntur vs Konidela Pawan Kalyan
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: Punishment for defamation.
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
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
-
Anand Singh vs Prem Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bar of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC is mandatory and applies to defamation offences. A court cannot take cognizance of a defamation offence after the expiry of three years from the date of the offence. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this limitation bar, and the revisional court erred in ignoring this bar and passing a summoning order. Additionally, a revisional court must issue notice to the petitioner before passing an adverse order, as required by the principles of natural justice.
On this section: Punishment for defamation; the offence charged against the petitioner
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.
-
… Lorenzo Boninsegna (accused no.3) were "jointly and severally responsible for writing, sending, publishing the above said letters containing malicious and defamatory statements and imputation against the complainant" and consequently summoned the three accused for offences under sections 500/107/34, Indian Penal Code ("IPC", hereafter). <sup>2</sup> (2011) 1 SCC 74 <sup>3</sup> LPA-668/2010 dt. 17th September 2010 <sup>4</sup> CC No.465/1/09 FACTS - 3. The undisputed and relevant facts leading to the summoning order impugned before the learned Judge is noticed hereunder: - i. …
-
… On 19.07.2019, Respondent No.1 herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' ) against six individuals, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan MagistrateI, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' ). The case of Respondent No.1 in his complaint was, that he has been the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi since February 2015; that on 01.07.2019, Shri Manoj Tiwari, ( A1 who is the appellant in one of these appeals ) held a …
-
… the filing of FIRs and complaints in multiple jurisdictions, straddling several States. 6 Mr Rohatgi submitted that the statements which have been attributed to the petitioner are based on a small part of the overall programme and that if the programme is viewed in its entirety, no offence has been made out under Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The petitioner has asserted his rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, while urging that the programme presented an analysis of an incident of mob lynching which took place at Palghar on 16 April 2020 in the course of which two persons were killed in the …
Questions about Section 500
What have the courts held on Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code?
Jeffrey J. Diermeier vs State of West Bengal (14 May 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for defamation. Court examined whether allegations in complaint constituted offense under this section read with Section 34 (common intention). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 500, section 500 IPC, section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 500 in bns and ipc 500 501 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 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 356 (Defamation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 500, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.