Defamation Notice – Criminal & Civil Action Guide

Is a defamation notice the right move for you?

A defamation notice fits when:

• A false statement of fact about you has been published — communicated to someone other than you. A newspaper article, a social media post, a WhatsApp group message, a speech at a public meeting, an email circulated to your clients. Private insults said to your face, with no one else present, are not defamation — publication is essential.
• The statement harms your reputation — it lowers you in the estimation of right-thinking people. Accusations of dishonesty, corruption, professional incompetence, financial instability, or immoral conduct all qualify. The test is not whether you felt hurt; it is whether your standing with others was damaged.
• You can identify who made or published the statement. Anonymous posts are actionable, but you will need to unmask the publisher first — through the platform, or through a court order — before a notice has a target.
• The statement does not fall within one of the ten statutory exceptions. If it was a true statement made for the public good, a fair report of court proceedings, or a good-faith complaint to an authority, it is not defamation and a notice will backfire.

Consider alternatives when:

• The statement is an opinion, not a claim of fact. "I think his restaurant is terrible" is not defamation. "His restaurant uses expired ingredients" is — if it is false.
• The statement is true and was published for the public good. Truth with a public-good purpose is the first exception to Section 356 BNS, and it is a complete defence.
• You want the content removed quickly rather than punished. A takedown request to the platform, or a complaint under the IT Rules, 2021 grievance mechanism, can be faster than litigation.
• The publisher is judgment-proof or untraceable, and the statement has limited circulation. Litigation costs real money; weigh the recovery prospects and the reputational value of a public vindication against the expense honestly.

---

What must be decided before sending the notice

The publication question. Was the statement actually communicated to a third party? This is the threshold issue in every defamation matter. A message sent only to you is not publication. A message posted in a WhatsApp group of 200 people is. A tweet, a Facebook post, a YouTube video, a newspaper column, a speech at a gathering — all publication. Gather the evidence now: screenshots with timestamps and URLs, the names of witnesses who saw it, the extent of circulation.

The falsity question. Is the statement false? You do not have to prove falsity to send a notice, but you must be confident of it before you litigate — because truth, published for the public good, is a complete defence, and a failed defamation case can invite a counter-case. If any part of the statement is true, identify exactly which parts are false and confine your notice to those.

The exceptions check. Run the statement through the ten exceptions before you accuse anyone. Was it a fair comment on a public servant's official conduct? A substantially true report of court proceedings? A good-faith accusation to a lawful authority — like a complaint to the police or a regulator? If an exception applies, the statement is not defamation, and your notice will be answered with a legal education you did not want.

The track decision — criminal, civil, or both. Criminal defamation punishes; civil defamation compensates. The criminal complaint is filed before a Magistrate and can end in imprisonment, fine or community service for the offender. The civil suit asks the court to award you money for the damage to your reputation. You can run both, and many clients do — but be honest about your real goal, because the strategy, the cost and the timeline differ.

The identity of the respondents. The person who made the statement and the person who published it can both be liable — the author of a post and the newspaper that printed it, the speaker and the channel that broadcast it. For online content, intermediaries (platforms) have safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act if they observe due diligence, so the notice usually targets the content creator first.

---

Advantages of a properly drafted defamation notice

It creates the paper trail every later proceeding needs

Courts notice who acted responsibly. A notice that identifies the exact statements, dates and places of publication, explains why they are false, and demands specific relief within a deadline becomes the foundation document of your case. It proves you gave the other side a fair chance to retract before you sued — and their refusal becomes part of your evidence.

It often ends the matter without a courtroom

Most defamation disputes settle at the notice stage. A well-drafted notice from an advocate signals that you are serious, organized and willing to litigate — and many publishers, faced with that signal, choose retraction and apology over a multi-year case. The notice is the cheapest settlement tool in the defamation lawyer's kit.

It freezes the evidence

The notice puts the publisher on formal warning, which makes subsequent deletion of the content look like destruction of evidence. Send the notice promptly, and you preserve the publication in its original form — with witnesses, timestamps and circulation intact — before anyone thinks to take it down.

It quantifies your claim early

A notice that states the damages you will claim — and the basis for the figure — frames the negotiation. Vague threats invite vague responses. A notice that says "your post reached an estimated 50,000 people, cost us three client contracts, and we will claim ₹25 lakh" concentrates the other side's mind.

It protects you from a backlash case

A careless notice — one that makes fresh false allegations about the other side, or threatens criminal prosecution to extort a civil settlement — can itself become the basis for a counter-case. A professionally drafted notice stays within the facts, makes no threats beyond lawful action, and keeps you on the right side of the line.

---

What the notice must contain

Identification of the parties. Your full name and address (or your company's), and the recipient's full name and address. If the defamatory content appeared under a pseudonym or a page name, state the connection — the account handle, the page URL, the evidence linking it to the recipient.

The exact statements complained of. Quote them verbatim. "You defamed me on Facebook" is not a notice; "On 12 March 2026, you published the following words on your Facebook page [URL]: [quote]" is. Attach screenshots or copies as annexures.

The publication details. Where, when and to whom the statements were published — the platform, the URL, the date and time, the approximate audience (followers, group members, circulation). Publication to a third party is the legal threshold; plead it specifically.

Why the statements are false. Set out the true facts, briefly and without rhetoric. If the post accused you of taking a bribe on a specific date, state where you actually were. If it accused your company of selling spurious products, reference your licenses and test reports. Facts, not adjectives.

The harm caused. Describe the damage to your reputation — lost business, cancelled contracts, professional consequences, social harm. You do not need to prove the full extent at the notice stage, but you must allebt the harm, because damages flow from it.

The demands. Typically: (1) immediate retraction of the statements in the same medium and with the same prominence; (2) an unconditional written apology; (3) payment of damages (stated or to be quantified); (4) an undertaking not to repeat the statements. Set a deadline — 7 to 15 days is standard.

The consequence of non-compliance. A clear statement that failure to comply will lead to legal proceedings — a criminal complaint under Section 356 BNS and/or a civil suit for damages — without further notice. Firm, not threatening; lawful action, not intimidation.

---

The notice process — step by step

Step 1: Evidence preservation

Before the notice goes out, preserve everything. Screenshot the defamatory content with the URL, date and time visible. Save the page source if it is a website. Note the names of people who saw it — they are your witnesses on publication. If it is a video, download it. If it is a newspaper, buy and keep multiple copies. Digital content can vanish in minutes; your evidence must not depend on it staying up.

Step 2: Legal assessment

Your advocate examines the statements against Section 356 BNS — the definition, the four explanations, and critically the ten exceptions. This is where weak cases die early, which is a service to you: a notice sent on a statement protected by an exception will be met with a reply that quotes the exception back at you, and you will have spent money to educate your opponent.

Step 3: Drafting

The notice is drafted with the anatomy above — parties, verbatim statements, publication details, true facts, harm, demands, deadline, consequence. The tone is professional and precise. No abuse, no exaggeration, no threats beyond lawful proceedings. Every factual claim in the notice must be something you can prove, because the notice itself becomes an exhibit.

Step 4: Service

The notice is sent by registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) or speed post to the recipient's address, and usually also by email for speed. Keep the postal receipts, the tracking records, and the email delivery confirmations. For online publishers whose physical address is unknown, service through the platform's grievance officer (required under the IT Rules, 2021) and email may be the practical route — document every attempt.

Step 5: The waiting period

The deadline in the notice — typically 7 to 15 days — is real. Do not file your case on day 3 out of impatience; the notice promised a window, and honouring it strengthens your position. Use the time to prepare the complaint or plaint so you can move immediately if the deadline passes unanswered.

Step 6: Evaluating the response

Three outcomes are common. Compliance — retraction, apology, and possibly a negotiated payment: the matter ends, usually with a written settlement recording the terms. Denial or counter-allegations — the other side disputes the facts or invokes an exception: your advocate assesses whether the reply has merit or is bluster. Silence — the most common response, and the clearest green light to proceed.

Step 7: Filing

If the notice does not resolve the matter, you file. The criminal complaint goes before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 222 BNSS, with the notice, the evidence of publication, and witness statements. The civil suit is filed in the appropriate civil court with court fee on the damages claimed. The two can run in parallel.

---

Criminal vs civil defamation — choosing your track

This is the decision most clients get wrong, so it deserves its own section. India is one of the relatively few democracies that retains criminal defamation, and the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) upheld it — holding that reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21, and criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2).

The criminal track (Section 356 BNS). You file a complaint before the Magistrate. The state prosecutes; you are the complainant and a witness. The punishment on conviction is simple imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both — and the BNS added community service as a sentencing option, a reformative alternative the IPC did not offer. The offence is non-cognizable (the police cannot arrest without a warrant) and bailable, and it is triable by a Magistrate First Class. Under Section 222 BNSS, cognizance is ordinarily taken on the complaint of the person aggrieved. Under Section 223 BNSS, the Magistrate must give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance — a procedural safeguard new with the BNSS.

Choose the criminal track when your goal is punishment and deterrence — when the publisher acted with malice, when the falsehood was egregious, when you want the full weight of a criminal proceeding behind the vindication of your name.

The civil track (damages suit). You sue in a civil court for monetary compensation. There is no fixed formula for damages; courts consider the gravity of the allegation, the size and influence of the circulation, the effect of the publication, the extent and nature of your reputation, and the conduct of both parties. Damages must compensate for the injury to reputation, vindicate your good name, and account for the distress and humiliation caused. The limitation period is one year from publication under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — shorter than most civil claims, so do not sit on it.

Choose the civil track when your goal is compensation — when the defamation cost you contracts, clients, a job, or business value that can be quantified in rupees.

Both tracks together. The law permits it, and there is no rule of election forcing you to choose. In practice, the criminal complaint creates pressure that accelerates settlement of the civil claim. But running both doubles the cost and the management burden — discuss it candidly with your advocate rather than assuming more proceedings means a better outcome.

---

The ten exceptions — what is not defamation

No defamation page is complete without the exceptions, because they are where cases are won and lost. Section 356 BNS carries forward the ten exceptions from Section 499 IPC, and the Supreme Court in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1969) held them to be exhaustive — courts cannot invent new ones.

1. Truth for the public good. It is not defamation to impute anything true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation be made or published. Both limbs are required — truth alone is not enough. Whether the publication served the public good is a question of fact.

2. Public conduct of public servants. Fair comment in good faith on the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of public functions — and on character so far as it appears in that conduct — is protected. Public officials are expected, as the Supreme Court has put it, not to be thin-skinned about criticism of their official acts.

3. Conduct touching any public question. Good-faith opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question is protected, with the same character limitation.

4. True reports of court proceedings. Publishing a substantially true report of court proceedings, or of their result, is not defamation. This is why accurate court reporting is safe and distorted reporting is not.

5. Merits of decided cases. Good-faith opinion on the merits of a case decided by a court, or on the conduct of witnesses and others concerned in it, is protected.

6. Merits of public performance. Good-faith opinion on the merits of any performance the author has submitted to public judgment — a book, a film, a stage show — is not defamation. Literary and artistic criticism lives here.

7. Censure by lawful authority. Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another — an employer on an employee, a teacher on a student — is protected.

8. Accusation to authorized person. Preferring in good faith an accusation against any person to those having lawful authority over them — a complaint to the police, to a regulator, to an employer — is not defamation. This exception protects genuine complainants.

9. Protection of interests. An imputation 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, is protected.

10. Caution for good. A caution conveyed in good faith to a person, intended for their good or for the public good — warning someone that a business partner is unreliable, for instance — is not defamation.

---

Online defamation — the special rules

Most defamation clients today arrive with a screenshot, not a newspaper clipping. The law applies the same Section 356 framework, but the practical issues are different.

Publication is easy to prove — and easy to lose. A post, a tweet, a video, a WhatsApp forward to a group, an email copied to others: all publication. But digital evidence is fragile. Screenshots should capture the URL, the timestamp, the account name and the content together. Witnesses who saw the post matter — they prove it was actually communicated to third parties, not merely posted into the void.

Platforms are usually not the target. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries enjoy safe-harbour protection if they observe due diligence — they are not liable for third-party content merely because they host it. Your notice and your case target the person who created or first published the content. That said, platforms must act on grievances under the IT Rules, 2021 — a takedown complaint to the platform's grievance officer, with the 15-day response framework, runs in parallel with your legal notice and often gets the content down faster than any court.

Section 66A is gone. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which had criminalized "offensive" online speech. Online defamation is now pursued under Section 356 BNS and the civil law of defamation — not under a vague offensiveness standard. Anyone citing 66A in a notice is working from repealed law.

Anonymity can be pierced. Anonymous posts are not immune. Courts can order platforms to disclose the identity behind an account, and the IT Rules require significant social media intermediaries to enable identification of the first originator of a message in serious offences. Unmasking takes time and a court order, but it is a well-trodden path.

Jurisdiction follows publication. Online content published everywhere can technically be sued where it was accessed and caused harm — but practically, you file where you are, where the publisher is, or where the harm concentrated. Discuss the forum with your advocate before you file; the wrong forum is an expensive lesson.

---

How long does it take?

The notice itself: drafting and service takes 3 to 7 days from engagement — most of that is the evidence-gathering and legal assessment, not the writing.

The response window: 7 to 15 days, as stated in the notice. A significant share of matters resolve here — retraction, apology, negotiated payment — within a month of first contact.

The criminal complaint: if the notice fails, filing takes 2 to 4 weeks of preparation. Trial before the Magistrate typically runs 2 to 4 years, though many complaints settle after cognizance when the accused faces the reality of a criminal proceeding.

The civil suit: filing takes 3 to 6 weeks. A contested damages suit typically runs 2 to 5 years to judgment, with settlement possible — and common — at any stage. Remember the one-year limitation from publication: the clock for the civil suit does not wait for the notice correspondence to conclude.

---

How ComplyKart helps in this entire process

Case assessment. We examine the statements against Section 356 BNS — the definition, the explanations, and the ten exceptions — and give you an honest read on whether you have a case before you spend a rupee on it. Weak cases are declined at this stage, not after filing.

Evidence preservation. We guide the collection and organization of publication evidence — screenshots with metadata, witness details, circulation estimates — in the form courts expect.

Notice drafting and service. We draft the notice with the full anatomy above, serve it by registered post and email, and maintain the service record. The tone is firm and professional — never abusive, never extortionate.

Response handling. We evaluate the reply — compliance, denial, or silence — and advise the next step candidly, including when the reply reveals that an exception applies and the matter should be dropped.

Complaint and suit filing. If the notice does not resolve the matter, we brief and coordinate with litigation counsel for the criminal complaint under Section 222 BNSS and/or the civil damages suit, carrying the paper trail forward.

What we do not do: we will not draft notices containing threats beyond lawful legal action, we will not help fabricate or exaggerate publication evidence, and we will not pursue a case we have assessed as falling within a statutory exception.

---

What happens after the notice is sent

In the first 15 days: the response window runs. Monitor whether the content is taken down, whether a retraction appears, and whether the other side makes contact. Do not engage directly with the publisher during this period — all communication goes through your advocate, so nothing you say informally undermines the formal position.

If they comply: get the settlement in writing — retraction terms, apology text and placement, payment schedule, and an undertaking against repetition. An oral apology is worth the air it disturbs; a written one is enforceable.

If they do not: the complaint or suit is filed, and the notice becomes Exhibit 1. Preserve all correspondence. Do not publish your own counter-statements about the dispute — anything you publish is judged by the same Section 356 standard, and retaliation defamation is a real and avoidable risk.

In the first 6 months of proceedings: expect the accused to seek discharge or quashing, often invoking an exception. This is normal. A well-assessed case survives it; the notice-stage assessment is what makes the difference between a case that proceeds and one that collapses at the threshold.

---

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Sending the notice before checking the exceptions. The single most common error. A notice on a statement protected by the truth-for-public-good exception, or on a good-faith complaint to an authority, hands the other side a complete defence gift-wrapped. Assess first, accuse second.

Vague identification of the statements. "You have been defaming me" without quoting the words, the dates and the places of publication is not a notice — it is a grievance. Precision is what makes a notice legally useful.

Threatening criminal prosecution to extract money. Demanding payment "or I will file a criminal case" can itself attract legal trouble — it can be characterized as extortion. State the lawful consequences of non-compliance; do not make the criminal complaint a bargaining chip in so many words.

Delaying the civil suit past limitation. The one-year limitation for civil defamation runs from publication, not from the end of notice correspondence. Clients who spend eight months in notice exchanges and then discover the suit is time-barred have lost the civil track entirely.

Publishing your own version of events. The temptation to "set the record straight" publicly during the dispute is strong and dangerous. Your public statements about the other side are judged by the same law — and a retaliatory post can hand them a counter-claim.

Ignoring the Streisand effect. Suing over an obscure post can give it more publicity than it ever had. Before litigating, ask honestly: will this proceeding bury the statement, or broadcast it? Sometimes the right advice is a quiet takedown, not a loud lawsuit.

---

If you are outside India

Defamation involving NRIs raises two practical questions. First, jurisdiction: if the statement was published online and accessed in India, Indian courts can generally take cognizance — but enforcing a judgment against a publisher with no Indian assets is a separate challenge. Second, evidence: screenshots and witness statements from abroad need proper authentication, and serving a notice internationally takes longer — registered post to a foreign address, email, and service through the platform may all be needed. Cross-border defamation is actionable, but go in with realistic expectations about enforcement timelines.

---

Sources

This page is built on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 356 — definition, explanations, exceptions and punishment), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 222 and 223 — complaint procedure), the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 75), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 79) and the IT Rules, 2021, and the Supreme Court decisions in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Harbhajan Singh v. State (1965) and M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1969). Statute references were verified against secondary legal sources in October 2026. Where a claim could not be verified against a primary source, it is marked [NEEDS VERIFICATION].

---