Section 499 IPC Defamation and Section 500 Punishment
Sections 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with criminal defamation, its statutory exceptions, punishment for defamation, printing or engraving defamatory matter, and sale of printed or engraved material containing defamatory matter.
What was defamation under Section 499 IPC?
Section 499 IPC treated a person as defaming another where, by spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, the person made or published an imputation concerning another person with the intention of harming that person's reputation, or with knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation would harm that reputation, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Four explanations to Section 499 IPC
Explanation 1 - Deceased person: An imputation concerning a deceased person could amount to defamation where it would have harmed that person's reputation if living and was intended to hurt the feelings of the person's family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2 - Company or association: An imputation concerning a company, association, or collection of persons as such could amount to defamation.
Explanation 3 - Irony or alternative form: An imputation expressed in an alternative form or ironically could amount to defamation.
Explanation 4 - Harm to reputation: Reputation was treated as harmed where an imputation directly or indirectly lowered, in the estimation of others, a person's moral or intellectual character, character in respect of caste or calling, credit, or caused it to be believed that the person's body was in a loathsome state or a state generally considered disgraceful.
Illustrations of an imputation
The statutory illustrations showed that an imputation did not have to be a direct accusation. Ironical words, pointing to a person in answer to a question about theft, or a picture depicting a person committing theft could amount to defamation when used with the relevant intention, unless protected by an exception.
Ten exceptions to criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC
First Exception - Truth published for public good
An imputation that was true was not defamation when it was for the public good that it should be made or published. Whether publication was for the public good was a question of fact.
Second Exception - Public conduct of public servants
A good-faith opinion concerning the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of public functions, or concerning character only so far as it appeared in that conduct, was protected.
Third Exception - Conduct concerning a public question
A good-faith opinion respecting the conduct of a person touching a public question, and character only so far as it appeared in that conduct, was protected. The statutory illustration referred to conduct such as petitioning the Government on a public question, participating in a public meeting or society, and voting or canvassing for a public position in which the public had an interest.
Fourth Exception - Reports of court proceedings
Publication of a substantially true report of proceedings of a Court of Justice, or the result of such proceedings, was protected. The statutory explanation also treated specified preliminary open-court inquiries as a court for this purpose.
Fifth Exception - Merits of a decided case and conduct of participants
A good-faith opinion concerning the merits of a civil or criminal case decided by a court, or the conduct of a party, witness, or agent in such a case, was protected to the extent that the person's character appeared in that conduct and no further.
The statutory illustrations distinguished criticism based on a witness's conduct in the case from a broader attack on the witness's character unrelated to that conduct.
Sixth Exception - Merits of a public performance
A good-faith opinion concerning the merits of a performance submitted by its author to public judgment, or concerning the author's character only so far as it appeared in that performance, was protected. The illustrations included a published book, a public speech, and a performance by an actor or singer.
Seventh Exception - Censure by a person having lawful authority
A person having lawful authority over another, whether by law or lawful contract, could in good faith censure that person's conduct in matters to which the authority related. The statutory illustration included a judge, departmental head, parent, schoolmaster, master, and banker acting within the relevant relationship.
Eighth Exception - Good-faith accusation to an authorised person
It was not defamation to make in good faith an accusation against a person to someone having lawful authority over that person concerning the subject matter of the accusation. The statutory illustration included a complaint to a Magistrate or to another person having the relevant authority.
Ninth Exception - Protection of interests or public good
An imputation made in good faith for protection of the interests of the maker, another person, or for the public good was protected. The statutory illustrations included a business warning given for protection of financial interests and a good-faith official report made for the public good.
Tenth Exception - Good-faith caution
A caution conveyed in good faith by one person against another was protected where it was intended for the good of the person receiving it, another person in whom that person was interested, or for the public good.
Section 500 IPC - Punishment for defamation
Under Section 500 IPC, a person who defamed another could be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 501 IPC - Printing or engraving defamatory matter
Section 501 IPC applied where a person printed or engraved matter knowing, or having good reason to believe, that it was defamatory of another person. The punishment was simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
Section 502 IPC - Sale of printed or engraved defamatory matter
Section 502 IPC applied where a person sold or offered for sale a printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter while knowing that it contained such matter. The punishment was simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
Pre-BNSS classification under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
| IPC provision | Nature | Bail | Ordinary trial court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 500 | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Magistrate of the First Class in ordinary cases |
| Section 501 | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Magistrate of the First Class in ordinary cases |
| Section 502 | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Magistrate of the First Class in ordinary cases |
Special procedural provisions applied to specified complaints concerning certain high public functionaries. The table above states the ordinary pre-BNSS classification and should be read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to the proceeding concerned.
Practical meaning of Section 499 IPC
For the pre-BNS offence of criminal defamation, the words or representation had to be considered together with publication, the required mental element, the effect on reputation in the estimation of others, and the statutory explanations and exceptions. Truth alone was not the complete wording of the First Exception: the statute also required that making or publishing the true imputation be for the public good.
Frequently asked questions
Was every negative statement about another person criminal defamation?
No. Section 499 required the statutory ingredients to be satisfied, and it expressly contained four explanations and ten exceptions.
What was the maximum imprisonment under Section 500 IPC?
The maximum term was two years of simple imprisonment. The court could instead impose a fine, or impose both imprisonment and fine.
Could a statement about a company amount to defamation?
Yes. Explanation 2 to Section 499 expressly contemplated an imputation concerning a company, association, or collection of persons as such.
Was truth by itself always a complete defence under the First Exception?
The First Exception required both truth and the public-good requirement stated in the provision. Whether publication was for the public good was a question of fact.
Could a substantially true report of court proceedings be protected?
Yes. The Fourth Exception protected publication of a substantially true report of court proceedings or their result, subject to the terms of the provision.
Note: This article is an informational explanation of the pre-BNS statutory framework. The law applicable to a particular act or proceeding depends on its facts, date, and the governing statutory provisions.