Author: Kashish Varshney, Barkatullah University, Bhopal
To the point
We’re living in a time when anyone, anywhere, can share their thoughts with the world in seconds—just a tweet, post, or story away. Social media has opened doors to powerful conversations, grassroots movements, and unfiltered expression. But with that freedom comes a dark side: online defamation.
Our laws were designed for an era when publishing defamatory statements or content required printing presses and editorial approval. Today, the same harm can be done with a casual comment or a viral meme. The tension between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)—particularly defamation—has become more pronounced in the digital age.
This essay navigates the complex legal system regarding digital defamation in India, balancing two fundamental rights: the freedom to speech and the right to protect one’s reputation.
Use of Legal Jargon
Defamation is a civil and criminal wrong involving the publication of a false statement about someone that harms the reputation of that person. The alleged act of defaming an individual through social media platforms constitutes both a tortious wrong and a criminal offense. The mens rea plays a critical role in establishing culpability under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The IT Act, 2000, supplements these provisions by addressing intermediary liability under section 79, providing safe harbor protections to online platforms conditional upon their due diligence obligations.
The constitutional interplay between Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions) is pivotal, as courts are frequently tasked with balancing informational autonomy and reputational rights. Additionally, injunctive relief, ex parte orders, and notice-and-takedown procedures are routinely employed in legal remedies to mitigate harm from defamatory digital content.
The Proof
Key Statutory Provisions
(i)Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
Section 336 (4)
This section addresses fraud. Whoever intends that the document or electronic record forged should harm the reputation of any party, or knows that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 356(1)
According to this subsection, anyone who, 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.
Section 356(2)
Anyone who violates section 356(1) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with a fine, or with both, or with community service.
(ii) Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66-A (now struck down)
Previously penalized offensive messages sent electronically.
Section 79
Provides conditional immunity to intermediaries.
IT Rules, 2021
Mandate due diligence, grievance redressal, and content takedown mechanisms.
(iii) Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(a)
Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2)
Allows reasonable restrictions, including for defamation.
Abstract
Social media’s reach is extraordinary—it empowers voices and amplifies opinions. But when false or malicious content goes viral, it can cause irreversible harm. That’s where digital defamation comes into play: online statements or posts that damage someone’s reputation.
Statements made on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn—whether posts or comments—can amount to libel, as they involve written content that may harm someone’s reputation. We’ve all seen it happens—someone accused without proof, a misleading clip taken out of context, or a trending hashtag that turns into digital harm. For the person at the centre of it, the impact isn’t just online. It’s their reputation, mental health, and sometimes even their safety that takes the hit. In the rush of likes and retweets, truth often takes a back seat. While social media empowers personal and societal growth, it’s crucial to remember that it also comes with risks. Like any tool, it must be used responsibly, keeping both its benefits and drawbacks in mind.
In India, the laws Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 356), and the Information Technology Act, 2000, form the backbone of legal remedies. But challenges remain—especially around defining who’s responsible, how quickly content can be removed, and what rights users actually have online.
Why regulating digital defamation is tricky.
The internet moves fast; it takes seconds for a post to go viral but days (or longer) for courts to intervene. Damage is often done before any takedown.
Everyone’s a publisher now. In traditional defamation, newspapers or TV channels were easier to regulate. Now, any social media user with a phone can cause reputational harm—often anonymously.
Who’s Accountable? Is it the person who posted the defamatory content? The platform? Both? Laws aren’t always clear, and platforms often hide behind “we’re just the medium” defenses.
Cross-Border Chaos An offensive post from someone in another country can still damage reputations in India. But enforcing Indian law internationally? Not so simple.
This evolving digital reality demands a legal and cultural rethink—one that respects both the right to speech and the right to be protected from defamation.
Case Laws
1.Subramanium Swamy v. Union of India A.I.R. 2016 SC 2748
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation, stating that the right to reputation is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court emphasized that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to dignity.
2. Ruchi Kalra & Ors. Vs. Slowform Media Private Limited & Ors, 2025
This case demonstrates that Sec 356 of the BNS applies to defamation on social media platforms.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India A.I.R. 2015 SC 1523
The court struck down Section 66-A and held the provisions of Section 66-A are not aimed at defamatory statements, as something may be grossly offensive or may annoy or be inconvenient to somebody without affecting his reputation. Section 66-A also has no proximate connection with incitement to an offence. Section 66-A cannot precisely be said to create an offence that falls under the expression ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘annoying’. The word ‘obscene’ is conspicuous by its absence in Section 66A. Under Section 294 I.P.C., the annoyance that is spoken of has to be caused by obscene utterances or acts.
4. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, 2017
The victim, a young woman, endured persistent cyberstalking—from the creation of a fake social media profile in her name to the circulation of vulgar messages to her friends and acquaintances. The harassment escalated with the morphing and public display of her photo in her college hostel, turning her private anguish into a humiliating public ordeal. The court recognized the gravity of the offence and held the perpetrator accountable, reinforcing that cyber defamation and digital harassment are not beyond the reach of the law.
This wasn’t just online mischief—it was a blatant attack on her dignity, reputation, and mental well-being. This case starkly illustrates how the internet can be weaponized and harm the dignity of an individual.
5. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr, 2011
The Delhi High Court refused to grant an injunction against a parody video, stating that satire and criticism are protected under free speech unless they cross the threshold into defamation.
Conclusion
The digital age has redefined the contours of speech, giving rise to new forms of expression— and new forms of harm. Online defamation, amplified by hashtags and viral content, poses a serious threat to reputation, dignity, and mental health. While Indian law provides a foundational framework, the dynamic nature of social media demands adaptive legal responses.
Way Forward
Update the Laws—We need defamation laws built for the digital age—laws that reflect how content is created, shared, and moderated on modern platforms.
Hold Platforms Responsible—Reasonably Intermediaries should act swiftly on court orders, have clear content policies, and protect users’ rights to be heard and to appeal takedowns.
Promote Digital Etiquette—Not everything requires legal action. Schools, universities, and public campaigns should teach responsible online behaviour and how to recognize harmful speech.
Ensure Speedy Justice—Let’s be honest: legal delays are the bane of Indian justice. Fast-track cyber defamation cases and introduce digital grievance redressal mechanisms.
FAQS
1.What is defamation?
Defamation means making false and spreading untrue statements that harm someone’s reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). The intent is usually to lower the person’s image in the eyes of others.
2. What is online defamation?
Online defamation means harming someone’s reputation by posting false or damaging content about them on digital platforms like social media, blogs, or forums.
3. Why is social media a powerful tool for both expression and harm?
It allows anyone to instantly share their opinions with a wide audience, but when misused, it can spread unverified or false information rapidly, causing serious harm.
4. Why is due diligence important for social media platforms?
It ensures platforms act responsibly by removing harmful content and protecting users from defamation or abuse.
5. How can society promote responsible use of social media?
By educating users about digital ethics, encouraging respectful communication, and holding platforms accountable for harmful content.
6. Why is balancing freedom of speech and reputational rights important?
Balancing freedom of speech and reputational rights is important because both are protected under the Constitution—speech under Article 19(1)(a) and dignity under Article 21. Free speech encourages open dialogue and democratic participation. But when misused, it can harm someone’s personal and professional life. In the digital era, viral posts can damage reputations instantly. The law helps ensure that expression doesn’t come at the cost of personal harm.
