INTRODUCTION
In recent years, we have witnessed viral memes sparking laughs and lawsuits. In 2017, a famous comedian, Tanmay Bhat, shared an image in which there was a Snapchat filter “dog” meme of our beloved Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi. He stated that the shared image was in the spirit of comedy and nothing else, but the authorities still treated it as defamation. Mumbai Police registered an FIR against him, and action was taken.[1]. Recently, a West Bengal BJP activist was arrested for sharing a morphed photo of CM Mamata Banerjee- her face on a Priyanka Chopra image. The Supreme Court of India granted bail only when he apologised for his behaviour.[2]. These examples show how the meme culture can collide with the legal protections for reputation. The defamation laws, framed ages ago, do not explicitly mention anything related to the rising meme culture and digital satire. Thus, they should incorporate these issues with the increasing internet trend.
WHAT COUNTS AS DEFAMATION IN INDIAN LAW?
Indian law outlines defamation and its punishment in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[3]. As per this, defamation is intended to harm another person’s reputation, or the person making the remark knows that this would cause harm to the other person’s reputation.[4]. The following are the elements that must be present for defamation:
Imputation: A remark that tends to make someone look bad in front of others.
Publication: At least one-third of the parties must be informed of the accusation.
Intent or Knowledge: The speaker must know that the statement will probably damage the person’s reputation, or at the very least, plan to do so.
Harm to Reputation: The statement must harm the person’s reputation in the community or have the potential to do so.
Defamation can be classified as civil or criminal under the Indian Penal Code. Tort law allows injured parties to sue for damages, as well as for reputational injury. Criminal defamation is considered an offence by law and may be subject to a fine or both. In the case, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)[5]The constitutionality of criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution[6] was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court[7]. This case remarked that there is still a harsh view of reputational harm, except for the truth, fair comment, etc.
WHERE MEMES ENTER THE PICTURE
Memes are an infamous form of expression comprising images and text to comment on politics, pop culture, public figures, or real-world issues. A meme is simply a form of comic expression. So, if any defamatory content is present in that particular meme, it would fall within the purview of Section 499[8], just like libel or slander[9]. However, memes blur boundaries; they rely heavily on humour, exaggeration, or irony, making it challenging to prove that harm is intended. A meme may contain outrageous content, but the creator could claim that no reasonable person would find it prudent.
In 2017, AIB’s famous comedian Tanmay Bhat tweeted about a dog-filter meme of PM Modi, initiating an FIR and a complaint. Though he deleted the meme, he was still charged with Section 500 under the IPC[10] and the IT Act[11][12]. The same happened in 2020, when a BJP youth leader, Priyanka Sharma, was accused of defamation and related offences when she shared a doctored photo of Mamata Banerjee’s face on the Bollywood actor Priyanka Chopra’s face. Though she claimed it was a joke, the Supreme Court only granted her bail when she apologised and stated that “free speech faces its end when such freedom violates the right of other people.”[13][14]
There is a more recent example, the India’s Got Talent controversy. In early 2025, a very famous comedian, Samay Raina’s show India’s Got Latent, faced immense backlash when a guest judge, Ranveer Allahbadia, made an explicit and offensive remark, which led to public outrage, FIRs under obscenity and related defamation provisions, and ultimately the removal of all its episodes from YouTube.[15].
These cases illustrate how a satirical or comedic format could create moral panic and real legal ramifications. As such, it also raises questions at the frontline about the exact boundaries of satire, the relevance of intent, and the implications of retweetability concerning harm.
SATIRE, PARODY, AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Many memes can be fitted into legal categories of satire or parody. Typically, a satire makes fun of a subject through irony; a parody replicates the style of something to make it comical. Section 499 of the IPC[16] Provides a vigorous defence of “fair comment” on matters of public interest. This defence allows an honest opinion, either positive or negative, about public figures and their works, so long as the person making it believes it to be true and does not defame them. This defence is often invoked for journalists in the real world, but extending this scope could also be applied to memes. If the meme showcases a satirical opinion about a politician or their acts, one can argue that it is a fair comment made in good faith.[17]
In the United States, the First Amendment favours satire and parody as a form of expression. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)[18], the Supreme Court held that outrageous parody of a public figure cannot be the sole reason for damages. The Court noted that political discourse without satire or parody would be considerably “poorer.”[19] The Defamation Act 2013 in the United Kingdom[20] requires the plaintiff to demonstrate serious harm to their reputation and provides a “public” interest defence.
Compared with Indian law, there is still no explicit exemption for memes or parodies. The Courts have recognised free speech limitations. As in Sharma’s case, Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna reminded the speech, “faces its end… rights of other people.”[21]treat apology as a remedy rather than punishing incarceration. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has described criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction on free speech, and on the other hand, lower courts are accepting that there is value in satire. Unless the Indian Courts set the “reasonable reader” standards for memes, the creators and the sharers would face uncertainty. Whether the Court will view their work as a positive critique and appraisal or an unlawful attack on reputation remains a big question in the public’s minds.
THE INTERNET FACTOR: VIRALITY, ANONYMITY & IMPACT
A meme is like a bullet train; it is way faster than that. It can go viral within hours, reaching millions and enlarging the harm. If a meme seems to harm a politician, even those who know it is a false accusation might unconsciously try to associate with them. This challenge multiplies online, making it hard to control the spread of memes.
Unknown users often post these memes. Tracing the originator is like finding a needle in a haystack. Even if he is found, there also might be a case that they may be outside India’s jurisdiction. Online platforms enjoy safe harbour protections unless they actively post outrageous content themselves. They are rarely liable for users’ actions, as the plaintiffs target individuals who post them. Since the platforms are not obliged to remove the content, they can do so only in response to a court or government order. This raises free-speech concerns. Criminal Defamation- its punishment originated during colonial times- is too vague for today’s digital satire or comedy world.
Some say the law lags in catching up with digital speech. Memes blur the lines between private insults and mass communications. If a meme goes viral, it dramatically impacts the public. Nowadays, the platforms have started to face pressure to remove or not post harassing and defamatory content. Still, no meme exception exists in the legal framework. When memes cross boundaries, they are labelled as defamatory and hate speech, and action occurs. The question on the frontline is whether they are consistent.
CONCLUSION
Memes play a significant role in public discourse. Defamation laws must protect individuals’ reputations from serious and false statements, but should not shut down and punish harmless satire. The keys are context and intent. A meme, if making an important point about politics, though harsh, should be seen as political speech. However, if a meme is deceptive and spreads baseless rumours, it should be curbed at all costs.
There have been calls for more precise guidance, but the Indian law seems to leave much of this for the courts to decide. However, the Parliament could amend defences to cover satire and parody. Meanwhile, the creators should sail carefully. Humour can spark laughter, but you may never know what could go wrong, leading to defamation and a lawsuit.
Democratic values suggest that laughter and public interest should win. However, until the law catches up, the reciprocity of memes and defamation will remain a big question.
Author(s) Name: Pratishtha Singh (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow)
References:
[1] TNN, “Meme on Modi: AIB founder booked for defamation, obscenity” The Times of India (Mumbai, 15 July 2017) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/meme-on-modi-aib-founder-booked-for-defamation-obscenity/articleshow/59601920.cms> accessed 24 May 2025.
[2] Ashok Bagriya, “BJP leader jailed for meme gets bail from SC, ordered to apologise to Mamata Banerjee” Hindustan Times (New Delhi, 12 May 2020) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/lok-sabha-elections/bengal-bjp-leader-jailed-for-sharing-morphed-photo-of-mamata-banerjee-given-bail-sc-says-she-must-apologise/story-HUZgFFGEQ61dFf2spq5HSJ.html> accessed 24 May 2025.
[3] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499–500.
[4] iPleaders, “Defamation: Section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code” (iPleaders, 5 March 2019) https://blog.ipleaders.in/defamation-section-499-to-502-of-ipc/ accessed 24 May 2025.
[5] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221.
[6] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2).
[7] Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, “Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India” (13 May 2016) <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/subramanian-swamy-v-union-india/> accessed 24 May 2025.
[8] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499.
[9] Ibid (n – 4)
[10] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 500.
[11] Information Technology Act 2000.
[12] Ibid (n – 1)
[13] Ibid (n – 2)
[14] Akshayan K S and Aditya Krishnan B, “Memes: A Study Under Defamation” (iPleaders, 1 July 2020) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/memes-study-defamation/> accessed 24 May 2025.
[15] Vasu Bhushan, “India’s Got Latent: Obscene or not?” Bar & Bench (New Delhi, 17 February 2025) https://www.barandbench.com/columns/indias-got-latent-obscene-or-not accessed 24 May 2025.
[16] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499.
[17] Thomson Reuters Foundation, Understanding Defamation Laws in India (TrustLaw, September 2024) https://www.trust.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/downloaded_file-5.pdf accessed 24 May 2025.
[18] Hustler Magazine Inc v Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988) (USSC).
[19] Von Wooding, “Hustler v. Falwell: Defining Free Speech and Public Figure Parody” (Counsel Stack, 3 May 2025) <https://blog.counselstack.com/hustler-v-falwell-defining-free-speech-and-public-figure-parody/> accessed 24 May 2025.
[20] Defamation Act 2013, c 26.
[21] Ibid (n – 14)
