Defamation Notice India: Section 356 BNS & 222 BNSS

Indian law treats defamation as both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. The civil side is an uncodified tort inherited from English common law, where truth is a complete defence. The criminal side sits in Section 356 BNS, which replaced Sections 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code for offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, and there truth protects the speaker only if the publication was also for the public good. The notice speaks to both. It records that a specific imputation is false, identifies where and when it was published, and demands removal of the content, an unconditional public apology in the same medium, and compensation for the loss suffered.

Advocates keep it distinct from other pre-litigation notices. A legal notice for breach of contract under Sections 73 and 74 rests on an agreement and quantifies a contractual loss. A defamation notice rests on reputation, which rarely comes with an invoice, so the compensation figure has to be reasoned rather than calculated. In practice, a sharp notice often ends the dispute without a single hearing.

Section 356(1) BNS defines defamation as making or publishing, by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs or visible representations, an imputation concerning any person with the intention of harming, or knowing or having reason to believe it will harm, that person's reputation. The Explanations extend protection to deceased persons and to companies and associations of persons, and ten Exceptions protect true imputations made for the public good, fair comment on public conduct and faithful reports of court proceedings. Section 356(2) provides simple imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, both, or community service. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable by the person defamed, so a settlement reached after a defamation legal notice can close a criminal case too. Section 222 BNSS allows cognizance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved, and the proviso to Section 223 BNSS now requires the Magistrate to hear the accused before taking cognizance. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) upheld criminal defamation under Article 19(2). The Ministry of Home Affairs official text of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 sets out Section 356 in full.

The civil clock is shorter. Under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a libel suit must be filed within one year counted from publication, not from the day you discovered the post; Article 76 runs slander from when the words were spoken. In Bloomberg Television Production Services India v. Zee Entertainment (2024) the Supreme Court restricted pre-trial gag orders to content that is malicious or palpably false. Screenshots need a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Online platforms are a separate front: since the 2022 amendment to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, deciding whether content is defamatory is left to the courts, so a binding takedown generally requires a court order.

The most frequent trigger is a social media post that spreads within a professional circle: a former business partner accusing you of fraud on LinkedIn, or a competitor's employee calling your clinic unhygienic on Instagram. Close behind are coordinated fake reviews, where a cluster of one-star entries repeats the same false claim within days. Opinion is generally protected as fair comment; a review alleging a specific fact, such as "they took the advance and never delivered", is not, and that distinction decides whether a notice will stick.

Workplace fallout comes next. Former employees who post false allegations about a company's finances often breach confidentiality obligations at the same time, and the notice works best when it also cites the signed non-disclosure agreement enforceable under the Contract Act 1872. With news portals, the notice doubles as a demand for correction.

Two edge cases need care. Allegations made in a police complaint or a court pleading raise privilege arguments, so the notice should target republication outside those proceedings. A company sending the notice should act under a board resolution authorising the signatory. If you have received such a notice rather than sent one, our format for replying to a legal notice under Indian law is the better starting point.

• The identification of the parties names the sender, the noticee and, where relevant, the editor, publisher or page administrator. Anonymous handles are described by username and profile URL, which later supports an application for disclosure of identity.
• The verbatim reproduction of the imputation quotes the words exactly, with platform, URL, date and approximate reach. A court tests the actual words against the Exceptions in Section 356(1), so paraphrase only weakens the case.
• The statement of falsity and harm explains why each imputation is untrue and records concrete consequences, such as cancelled orders or a lost mandate. Documented harm is what separates a reasoned compensation figure from a bluff.
• The three-part demand requires takedown, publication of an apology in wording annexed to the notice, and payment of a stated sum. Annexing the text prevents a vague "regret if anyone was hurt" post.
• The compliance period gives a short window for removal and typically fifteen days for the apology and payment. Receipt is fixed by the Speed Post delivery record.
• The reservation of remedies preserves the right to sue for damages and a permanent injunction and to complain under Section 356 BNS read with Section 222 BNSS. It commits you to neither route.
• The non-repetition and preservation clause requires the noticee to stop republishing and to preserve related data. Like every format in our notices and compliance collection for India, it closes with a signature block and service details.

Delhi is the busiest forum for online defamation. The Delhi High Court exercises original civil jurisdiction above its pecuniary threshold and has issued John Doe orders against unknown uploaders and, in Swami Ramdev v. Facebook (2019), a direction to disable defamatory videos globally. In Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir (2013) it applied the single publication rule, so the limitation period for online content runs from first upload. Because Section 19 CPC lets a plaintiff sue where the wrong occurred or where the defendant resides, the notice should state where the sender lives and where the content was read.

Maharashtra concentrates media, film and financial services disputes. The Bombay High Court keeps original side jurisdiction for Mumbai city, and court fees on a damages claim follow the Maharashtra Court-fees Act, 1959, which makes the compensation figure in your notice more than a negotiating number. A notice about a Marathi article should quote the original text with a certified translation.

Tamil Nadu has a line of Madras High Court decisions quashing State-initiated criminal defamation complaints against journalists, holding that the Public Prosecutor route now in Section 222(2) BNSS cannot be used to silence criticism. A notice aimed at a Chennai media house should lead with the civil claim. Suits are valued under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

Karnataka sees many employer and startup disputes out of Bengaluru. Damages suits begin before the City Civil Court and are valued under the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and applications for interim injunctions there now follow the Bloomberg v. Zee standard.

You begin by entering your details and the noticee's, choosing whether the notice issues in your own name or through an advocate, and selecting the state where you live and where the content was read. The form then asks for the publication itself: platform, URL or newspaper edition, date, and the exact words, which you paste rather than summarise. You explain in plain language why each statement is false and what it cost you, and the template converts that narrative into numbered paragraphs.

The next screen sets the demand. You choose removal only, removal with an apology, or all three remedies, and you fix the amount and the deadlines. An optional field lets you draft the apology the noticee must publish. The last step records service. Since India Post merged Registered Post into Speed Post, send the notice by Speed Post with the proof of delivery option and keep the tracking record.

The error we see most often is paraphrasing the post instead of quoting it. A notice saying the noticee "made false allegations about my business" gives the other side nothing to answer and a court nothing to test. The second is failing to preserve evidence before serving; many noticees delete the content on receipt, and a screenshot without a Section 63 BSA certificate or a supporting general affidavit sworn under the Oaths Act 1969 from someone who read it is easy to challenge.

Third, senders demand an inflated sum with no reasoning, which invites ridicule in the reply. Fourth, never threaten arrest: defamation is non-cognizable, so police cannot arrest without a warrant, and a money demand backed by threats of prosecution can be painted as extortion under Section 308 BNS or intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Finally, people wait. The one-year civil limitation runs quietly from publication, and a notice sent in the eleventh month leaves almost no room to negotiate.