How to Remove Fake or Defamatory Posts Online: Criticism, Defamation and Forgery

Before trying to get an online post removed, sort it into one of three boxes. Sharp criticism is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) and is not an offence. False statements that harm a person’s reputation may be defamation under BNS s.356, but only the person defamed can file the criminal complaint (BNSS s.222). A fake document, such as a forged office order or letter, is forgery of an electronic record under BNS s.336, a police matter. Then climb the removal ladder: the platform’s Grievance Officer, the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days, a civil court for an injunction, and a criminal complaint.

Step one: sort the content into three boxes

An anonymous Instagram page aimed at a college in Jaipur posts a sharp attack on a fee increase, allegations naming a teacher, and a fake “Office Order” over the principal’s signature. The instinct is to demand the whole page be removed. The law treats the three differently.

1. Criticism of a decision. Not an offence. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down s.66A of the IT Act, which had punished “offensive” online messages.
2. Allegations against a named person. Possibly defamation under BNS s.356, if they are false and harm reputation. The law recognises exceptions, including truth published for the public good and fair comment on public conduct. The remedy belongs to the person defamed, not to the institution on that person’s behalf.
3. The fake office order. The clearest case. Making a false electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury is forgery under BNS s.336. If it is made to harm someone’s reputation, s.336(4) raises the maximum to 3 years and fine. Presenting it as the head of office’s order is also cheating by personation using a computer resource under IT Act s.66D, if the ingredients of cheating are present.

A request to remove everything usually removes nothing. Identify each forged or defamatory post by its URL.

Step two: the removal ladder

1. Platform Grievance Officer. Every platform must publish the contact details of a Grievance Officer under the IT Rules, 2021. After the amendment in force from 20 February 2026, complaints of impersonation in electronic form, including morphed images, and of intimate imagery must be acted on within 2 hours. Other grievances must be resolved within 7 days. Send a written complaint listing each URL.
2. Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC). If the Grievance Officer rejects or ignores the complaint, appeal on gac.gov.in within 30 days of the platform’s decision.
3. Civil court. File a suit for injunction and damages and ask for an interim order directing the platform to take down the identified posts and to disclose the details of the person running the account.
4. Criminal process. For forgery, impersonation and threats, a police complaint or FIR (any police station can register a zero FIR under BNSS s.173). For defamation, a complaint by the aggrieved person before the Magistrate, because under BNSS s.222 the court can take cognisance only on such a complaint.

Why s.69A blocking is not the answer

People often ask why the government cannot simply block the page. Section 69A of the IT Act lets the Central Government block content only on specified grounds: the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to a cognizable offence relating to these. A defamatory post or a forged letter in a private dispute does not fall within these grounds. The right route is the platform, the GAC and the courts.

Deepfakes and AI-made content

A video shows a teacher apparently insulting the institution. He never said a word of it. Do not forward it, even to ask whether it is real: forwarding spreads the harm and can amount to publishing it again.

Courts have begun to respond. In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (Delhi High Court, 20 September 2023), the court restrained the use of the actor’s name, image, voice and likeness without consent, including through AI tools and deepfakes, and ordered infringing links to be blocked. Such personality-rights orders have mostly protected celebrities. An ordinary person still has remedies: impersonation complaints to the platform under the 2-hour rule, IT Act s.66D where there is cheating, defamation under BNS s.356, and the 2026 amendment requiring AI-generated content to be labelled.

Common mistakes

• Asking the platform to remove criticism along with the genuinely unlawful posts. It weakens the whole complaint.
• An institution filing a criminal defamation complaint for an individual employee. The aggrieved person must file it.
• Deleting your own replies or screenshots. Save every URL, username, date and time first. Copies of electronic records need a certificate under s.63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to be used in court.
• Asking the police for “blocking under s.69A” in a private dispute.

Frequently asked questions

Can a company or college file a defamation case for its staff member?

No. Under BNSS s.222, the court takes cognisance of defamation only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. The institution can file in its own name only if it is itself defamed.

How do I find out who runs an anonymous account?

Through a court order directing the platform to disclose subscriber details, or through a police investigation after an FIR.

Is a forged letter on social media just defamation?

No. Creating a false electronic record is forgery under BNS s.336, which the police can investigate on a complaint by the institution.

How fast must a platform remove a fake profile of me?

Within 2 hours of your complaint, under the IT Rules as amended from 20 February 2026.

Quick quiz

For personal online safety, see the Cyber Fraud Safety certificate course (₹299). For offices handling reputation attacks: Cyber Crime Law for Offices and Institutions, ₹599. These are certificates of completion, not professional qualifications.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: ss.336, 356
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: ss.173, 222
• Information Technology Act, 2000: ss.66D, 69A, 79
• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 3, as amended on 10 February 2026 with effect from 20 February 2026
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: s.63
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, CS(COMM) 652 of 2023, Delhi High Court, 20 September 2023

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case. Law as on 29 October 2026.