BNSS Defamation Cognisance Procedure: A Complete Guide
In today's digital age, defamation cases are on the rise, especially with social media amplifying reputational harms. Understanding the correct procedure for initiating legal action is crucial for victims seeking justice. The question on many minds is: What is the Procedure for Taking Cognisance for an Offence of Defamation under BNSS? The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) effective July 1, 2024, outlines a structured process emphasizing fairness and judicial oversight. This guide breaks it down step-by-step, drawing from key provisions and judicial insights. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Overview of Defamation under BNSS
Defamation, governed by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, replacing IPC Section 499), remains a non-cognizable offence. This classification means police cannot register an FIR or investigate without a magistrate's order. Cognisance— the court's judicial notice of an offence to initiate proceedings—can only be taken on a private complaint by the aggrieved person. As held in judicial precedents, That procedure which specially deals with the prosecution for defamation interdicts the Court from taking cognizance of offences under Chapter XXI of IPC (which deals with the offences of defamation) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Shine George, S/o Geroge VS State of Kerala - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 204 - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 204
Under BNSS, the process aligns with but updates CrPC provisions like Section 199, now reflected in Sections 223 and 226. Key changes include mandatory notices to the accused before cognisance, ensuring their right to be heard. SUBY ANTONY vs R1(*DELETED) - KeralaSUBY ANTONY vs JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-III - Kerala
Key Steps in the Procedure for Taking Cognisance
The BNSS mandates a rigorous, complainant-driven process. Here's how it typically unfolds:
1. Filing the Complaint
Only the aggrieved person (whose reputation is allegedly harmed) can file a written complaint before the magistrate. It must detail facts constituting defamation, such as imputations lowering the complainant's reputation. Cognisance of defamation can only be taken upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence, as stipulated in Section 199(1) of the CrPC. Arnab Ranjan Goswami VS Union of India - Supreme CourtSarabpreet Singh @ Sarvaprit Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand
Special cases allow proxies:- Minors under 18- Persons with mental illness- Women per local customs not appearing in public
These require court permission. Arnab Ranjan Goswami VS Union of India - Supreme Court
No FIRs are permitted; attempts to direct police under equivalent of CrPC Section 156(3) are invalid. Arnab Ranjan Goswami VS Union of India - Supreme CourtSarabpreet Singh @ Sarvaprit Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand
2. Magistrate's Examination (Section 223 BNSS)
Upon receiving the complaint, the magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses on oath. The Magistrate's process involves multiple stages, beginning with examining the complaint and witnesses on oath, as mandated by Section 223(1) of BNSS. Seeman vs Varun Kumar - MadrasSUBY ANTONY vs R1(*DELETED) - Kerala
The magistrate records their statements and assesses if a prima facie case exists—i.e., if the complaint discloses an imputation capable of lowering reputation. Furthermore, in offences pertaining to defamation, it is sufficient if the complaint discloses an imputation capable of lowering the complainant’s reputation in the estimation of others. JITENDER & ANR. vs RAKESH KUMAR @ KALWA@PRADHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4114 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4114
3. Issuance of Notice and Hearing for Accused
A pivotal BNSS safeguard: Before taking cognisance, the magistrate must issue notice to the accused, providing an opportunity to be heard. Before taking cognisance, the Magistrate must issue notice to the accused named in the complaint, allowing them to be heard. This is a critical procedural step... Failure to do so... constitutes procedural violations under BNSS. SUBY ANTONY vs R1(*DELETED) - KeralaSUBY ANTONY vs JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-III - KeralaDivisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division vs Range Forest Officer - Kerala
The proviso to Section 223(1) emphasizes this hearing, distinguishing it from initial cognisance under Section 226. Skipping this step risks quashing proceedings. Seeman vs Varun Kumar - Madras
4. Taking Cognisance and Issuance of Process
Cognisance is a judicial act where the magistrate applies mind to allegations. Cognisance occurs when the Magistrate, after examining the complaint and witnesses, takes judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiating proceedings. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud vs State of Telangana - TelanganaJagan Chandy S/o Late M. C. Chandy VS Jagadish K. A. S/O Late Major K. R. A. Gowda - Karnataka
If satisfied, process (summons) issues under equivalent of CrPC Section 204. For Sessions cases under BNSS equivalent of Section 199(2), trial follows warrant-case procedure sans police report. As per provision of Section 237, Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court of Sessions taking cognizance of an offence of defamation under Sub-section (2) of Section 199... shall try the case in accordance with the procedure, for the trial of warrant cases... Subal Kumar Dey VS State of Tripura - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 748 - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 748
5. Preliminary Inquiry if Needed
Magistrates may conduct further inquiry under Section 202 CrPC equivalent to verify grounds, preventing frivolous cases. Amar Singh VS S. R. Rana - Himachal PradeshSarabpreet Singh @ Sarvaprit Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand
Important Considerations and Restrictions
Procedural lapses, like no notice or oath examination, invalidate cognisance. Proper procedure requires the Magistrate to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath, provide the accused with an opportunity of hearing, and record reasons... Any deviation... results in procedural irregularities... Seeman vs Varun Kumar - MadrasSuhyb P.J S/o. Jamaludheen vs State Of Kerala - KeralaDivisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division vs Range Forest Officer - Kerala
Trial Procedure Post-Cognisance
Once accused appears, proceedings follow Chapter XIX Part B equivalent (complaint cases). Prosecution evidence first (Section 244 CrPC equiv.), then discharge possible if no case (Section 245). Subal Kumar Dey VS Public Prosecutor, West Tripura District - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 749 - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 749Subal Kumar Dey VS State of Tripura - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 748 - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 748
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
The BNSS procedure for defamation cognisance prioritizes aggrieved parties' rights while protecting accused through notices and inquiries. Core steps: written complaint → oath examination → accused hearing → judicial cognisance → process issuance. Adherence ensures robust proceedings; deviations risk dismissal.
Key Takeaways:- File detailed, evidence-backed complaints only as aggrieved person.- Expect magistrate's oath inquiry and mandatory accused notice.- No FIRs—magistrate route exclusively.- Time-bound for officials; non-cognizable limits police role.
For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert. Stay informed on BNSS transitions to navigate defamation effectively.
References:Arnab Ranjan Goswami VS Union of India - Supreme CourtSarabpreet Singh @ Sarvaprit Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh VS State of Jharkhand - JharkhandAmar Singh VS S. R. Rana - Himachal PradeshAditya Raj Kaul VS Naeem Akhter - J&KN. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, Printer & Publisher, The Hindu, Kasturi & Sons Limited, Kancheepuram VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Law and Company Affairs, New Delhi - MadrasJITENDER & ANR. vs RAKESH KUMAR @ KALWA@PRADHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4114 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4114Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M. Appavu VS R. M. Babu Murugavel, S/o. Mr. D. R. Mannu - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1852 - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1852Shine George, S/o Geroge VS State of Kerala - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 204 - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 204Subal Kumar Dey VS Public Prosecutor, West Tripura District - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 749 - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 749Subal Kumar Dey VS State of Tripura - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 748 - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 748Seeman vs Varun Kumar - MadrasSUBY ANTONY vs R1(*DELETED) - KeralaSUBY ANTONY vs JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-III - KeralaSuby Antony S/o. Late P. D. Antony VS Judicial First-Class Magistrate - KeralaDivisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division vs Range Forest Officer - KeralaNalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud vs State of Telangana - TelanganaJagan Chandy S/o Late M. C. Chandy VS Jagadish K. A. S/O Late Major K. R. A. Gowda - Karnataka
#BNSSDefamation #CognisanceProcedure #LegalGuide
