Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XXI: Of Defamation
Section 499: Defamation
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes 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.
Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the fellings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations
(a) A says— “Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. First Exception.—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.—Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustrations Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the
public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Illustrations
(d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Illustration Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be 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.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.— It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 499
-
Anil Khandelwal Etc. v. Phoenix India and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the quashing petition filed by the appellants-Officers of the Bank challenging the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process against them for the offences punishable…
-
Devendra Kumar v. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a…
-
Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Whether the complaint filed by the respondent makes out a case for offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, IPC against the appellants.
-
Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences u/ss.499 and 500 IPC.
-
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the…
-
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The matter pertains to the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties; as also the constitutional validity of the provisions of the…
-
Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of
The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email from complainant, addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court suo motu registered a Criminal Writ Petition pursuant to the above…
-
M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr
(i) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, the Magistrate before summoning the accused ought to confine himself to the allegations forming par t of the petition only or he may, applying his…
- Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- B.R.K. Aathithan v. Sun Group & Anr.
- Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors
- M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan and Another
- State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Ors.
- Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr.
- Google India Private Limited v. M/S. Visakha Industries
- Miss Xyz v. State of Gujarat & Anr
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) v. Union of India and Others
- K. K. Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
- Mohammed Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K.
- Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors.
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors.
- S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram
- Rajdeep Sardesai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
- Devi Das Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra& Ors.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India