Section 222 BNSS: Prosecution for defamation (Formerly Section 199 CrPC)

Section 222 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Prosecution for defamation

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

Provided that where such person is a child, or is of unsound mind or is having intellectual disability or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita, when any offence falling under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.

(3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.

(4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction—

(a) of the State Government,—

(i) in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government;

(ii) in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State;

(b) of the Central Government, in any other case.

(5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 222

Section 222 regulates the prosecution for Defamation (Section 356 BNS), enacting the rule that no court shall take cognizance except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence, with a specialized procedure for constitutional dignitaries (replacing Section 199 CrPC).

Aggrieved Person Rule: Criminal defamation complaints can only be filed by the individual specifically defamed.
High Dignitaries Exception: When defamation is committed against the President, Vice-President, Governor, or Minister regarding public functions, the Court of Session may take direct cognizance upon a written complaint by the Public Prosecutor with prior government sanction.
Six-Month Limitation for State Complaints: Complaints by the Public Prosecutor must be filed within six months from the date of the alleged offence.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation, ruling that Section 199 CrPC (Section 222 BNSS) provides adequate procedural safeguards against abuse.
K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 676: The Supreme Court held that the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC applies strictly to defamatory statements relating to the official discharge of public functions; personal attacks cannot be prosecuted through the state public prosecutor.
G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa (1972) 2 SCC 54: Settled that an unidentifiable, indeterminate collection of individuals cannot lodge a defamation complaint; the complainant must be personally targeted.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Linchpin defense under *K.K. Mishra* and *G. Narasimhan*: (1) A private proxy cannot file a defamation complaint for a friend or political party; (2) If a Minister uses the Public Prosecutor under Section 222(2) for a personal defamation dispute unrelated to official duties, the complaint must be dismissed.