Part 1 of 2 of BNS : Part 1 of 2

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi, a journalist, writes an article in a local newspaper claiming that Suresh, a well-known businessman, has been embezzling funds from his company. Ravi does not have any evidence to support this claim and publishes the article with the intention of harming Suresh's reputation. Suresh finds out about the article and sues Ravi for defamation. Under Section 356 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Ravi could be held liable for defamation as he made a false imputation intending to harm Suresh's reputation.

Example 2:

Priya, a social media influencer, posts a video on her channel where she sarcastically comments, "Oh, look at Mr. Honest Ramesh, who never cheats on his taxes," while showing a picture of Ramesh. Priya's followers start believing that Ramesh is a tax evader. Ramesh, feeling his reputation has been damaged, decides to take legal action against Priya. According to Section 356, Priya's sarcastic comment could be considered defamation as it indirectly lowers Ramesh's moral character in the eyes of others.

Example 3:

A local activist group publishes a pamphlet accusing a deceased politician of being corrupt during his tenure. The politician's family is deeply hurt by these accusations and believes it tarnishes his legacy. They decide to file a defamation suit against the activist group. Under Explanation 1 of Section 356, imputations against a deceased person that harm their reputation and hurt the feelings of their family can be considered defamation.

Example 4:

A cartoonist draws a caricature of a well-known company CEO, depicting him as a thief stealing money from the company's safe. The cartoon is published in a popular magazine. The CEO feels that this has damaged his reputation and decides to sue the cartoonist and the magazine for defamation. According to Explanation 2 of Section 356, making an imputation concerning a company or its representative can amount to defamation.

Example 5:

During a public debate, Anil, a political commentator, states, "I believe the evidence presented by Mr. Sharma in the recent corruption case was so inconsistent that he must be either incompetent or dishonest." Anil's statement is based on his observation of Mr. Sharma's conduct during the trial. Mr. Sharma sues Anil for defamation. However, under Exception 5 of Section 356, Anil's statement may not be considered defamation as it is an opinion expressed in good faith regarding Mr. Sharma's conduct as a witness in a court case.