Defamatory Posts on Social Media Amount to “Cyber Defamation” U/S 356 BNS 

In today’s world, social media has become an essential tool for communication. With millions of users across various platforms, it has made sharing ideas, thoughts, and information easier than ever before. However, this easy access to a global audience has also led to a rise in harmful practices such as spreading defamatory content. Cyber defamation is one such problem that has gained attention in recent years in a huge number. 

Cyber defamation occurs when false or malicious information is shared online with the intent of damaging someone’s reputation. It can happen on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or even through WhatsApp messages. In India, such acts are punishable under the law, including Section 356 BNS, which specifically addresses cyber defamation.  

In this article, we will explore what cyber defamation is, its legal consequences, and how Section 356 BNS works to protect individuals from this type of harm. 

What is Cyber Defamation?

Cyber defamation is a type of defamation that takes place through electronic means, such as social media platforms, emails, or blogs. Defamation itself is the act of making false statements about someone with the intent to harm their reputation. When these statements are made online, they can spread quickly and cause significant damage to the person’s social and professional life. 

Examples of cyber defamation include: 

• Spreading false rumours about someone. 

• Posting malicious comments aimed at ruining a person’s reputation. 

• Sharing misleading information that may harm someone’s image. 

• Cyberbullying, which involves using the internet to harass or intimidate someone. 

Since information can spread rapidly online, even a single post can lead to severe consequences for the person being defamed. 

Legal Framework for Cyber Defamation

In India, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with defamation under Sections 499 and 500. However, when defamation occurs through electronic or digital media, it is considered “cyber defamation” and is governed by specific laws such as the Information Technology Act, 2000. 

Earlier, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was used to deal with cyber defamation, but in 2015, the Supreme Court of India declared it unconstitutional. Despite this, cyber defamation is still punishable under other sections of the law, including Section 356 BNS, which is designed to address this issue. 

Section 356 BNS and Cyber Defamation 

Section 356 BNS is a provision in Indian law that deals specifically with cyber defamation. It addresses situations where false, malicious, or harmful content is published online with the intention of defaming someone. This section provides for criminal punishment, which can include imprisonment and fines, for those found guilty of cyber defamation. 

Under Section 356 BNS, if someone is found guilty of spreading defamatory content online, they may face both legal consequences and a potential loss of credibility. The law ensures that the rights of individuals to maintain a good reputation are protected, even in the online world. 

Key Elements of Cyber Defamation Under Section 356 BNS 

For a statement to be considered cyber defamation under Section 356 BNS, certain elements must be present: 

1. False Statement: The statement made must be false. If the statement is true, it cannot be considered defamation. 

2. Intent to Harm: The person making the statement must have the intention to harm the reputation of the individual or organization being targeted. 

3. Public Access: The defamatory content must be made available to the public or a large audience, not just in a private message or conversation. 

4. Harm to Reputation: The content must cause harm to the person’s reputation, whether emotionally, socially, or professionally. 

These elements must be proven for the offense to be considered as cyber defamation under the law. 

Consequences of Cyber Defamation 

The consequences of cyber defamation can be serious for both the victim and the person responsible for the defamatory content. 

For the Victim: 

• Damage to Reputation: The victim may suffer public humiliation, loss of respect, and personal distress. 

• Impact on Career: False and malicious posts can harm the victim’s professional life, affecting job opportunities and career growth. 

• Mental Distress: Constant harassment or defamation can cause anxiety, stress, and even depression. 

For the Perpetrator: 

• Imprisonment: If convicted, the person who posts defamatory content can face imprisonment. 

• Fines: In addition to imprisonment, a fine may be imposed as a punishment. 

• Civil Suit: The victim may also file a civil lawsuit for compensation, adding further legal consequences for the defamer. 

Key Legal Precedents  

Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)

Facts:  

In 2015, Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized the posting of “offensive” content online. The case arose after two women were arrested in 2012 for posting a Facebook comment criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai during a political leader’s funeral. They were charged under Section 66A, sparking concerns about the misuse of the law to stifle free speech. 

Issues: 

1. Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act violated the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. 

2. Whether the provision was too vague, leading to arbitrary arrests and curbing of legitimate expression, particularly online. 

Final Judgment:  

The landmark case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) addressed the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 66A was unconstitutional. The Court found the provision to be vague and overly broad, violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The judgment emphasized that any law restricting free speech must be precise and necessary. As a result, the Court struck down Section 66A, protecting online freedom of expression while highlighting the need for better-defined laws on online content regulation. 

Swami Ramdev vs. Facebook Inc. (2020) 

In the case of Swami Ramdev vs. Facebook Inc. (2020), the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of cyber defamation on global digital platforms. The dispute arose when defamatory content against Swami Ramdev was shared on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Google. The court observed that such content, accessible worldwide, could cause significant reputational harm. 

Facts:

In 2020, Swami Ramdev, a renowned yoga guru, filed a case against Facebook Inc. after defamatory content was posted about him on the platform. The posts contained false accusations and misleading statements that harmed his reputation. Despite reporting the issue to Facebook, the content remained accessible and was widely shared. 

Issues: 

1. Whether Facebook should be held responsible for allowing defamatory content to be published and spread on its platform. 

2. Whether Facebook violated its own policies by failing to take timely action against the harmful posts. 

Final Judgment: In the case of Swami Ramdev vs. Facebook Inc. (2020), the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of cyber defamation on global digital platforms. The dispute arose when defamatory content against Swami Ramdev was shared on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Google. The court observed that such content, accessible worldwide, could cause significant reputational harm and directed Facebook Inc. to remove all defamatory content related to Swami Ramdev and ensure strict adherence to its guidelines regarding harmful material. The case underscored the responsibility of social media platforms to act swiftly and effectively when defamatory or offensive content is reported. Facebook was ordered to take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of such content and safeguard individuals’ reputations. 

This case highlighted the increasing importance of holding social media companies accountable for content moderation and protecting individuals from defamation in the digital space. 

Steps to Take if You Are a Victim of Cyber Defamation

If you find yourself the target of cyber defamation, here are some steps you can take: 

1. Document Evidence: Take screenshots or save copies of the defamatory posts. This will serve as evidence when filing a complaint. 

2. Report to the Platform: Social media platforms allow users to report harmful content. By doing this, you can get the post removed and reduce its spread. 

3. File a Police Complaint: You can file a formal complaint with the police, who will investigate the matter under Section 356 BNS. 

4. Seek Legal Advice: Consulting a lawyer will help you understand your rights and the best course of action to take. 

How to Avoid Getting Involved in Cyber Defamation 

Preventing cyber defamation starts with being mindful of your online presence. Here are a few things to keep in mind: 

1. Always ensure that the content you post online is truthful and respectful. 

2. Before sharing or commenting on posts about others, make sure your actions will not harm their reputation. 

3. Avoid spreading private or sensitive information about others without their consent. 

Conclusion 

Cyber defamation is a serious issue that can cause long-lasting harm to individuals. With the increasing use of social media, it has become easier for people to spread false information with just a click. However, laws like Section 356 BNS work to protect people from such attacks. By understanding cyber defamation and its legal consequences, individuals can be more cautious about their online behaviour and ensure they do not harm others. 

In today’s digital world, it is essential to stay informed about the laws and responsibilities we have when using social media. Being respectful and mindful online can go a long way in protecting both your reputation and the reputation of others.