The committee, set up in May to examine legal options for dealing with defamatory content online, has submitted its recommendations to the state Law and Judiciary Department.
According to sources, the committee has settled on a state amendment to the BNS, which sits on the Concurrent List. That route requires the state legislature to pass the amendment, after which it goes to the Centre and then to the President for assent before it can take effect. Amending the Maharashtra Police Act or seeking a change to the IT Act was considered and dropped.
“The BNS amendment route was preferred as it would be vetted at multiple levels and have a stronger footing if challenged in courts as compared to amending the state law. The IT Act is a central law and hence cannot be amended only at state level,” the source said.
The BNS already defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation about a person, by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs or by visible representations, intending or knowing it will harm that person’s reputation. It makes no specific mention of online content.
Section 66A criminalised sending messages through a computer or communication device that were considered grossly offensive or menacing, among other categories. It was invoked in cases involving comments, shared information and opinions posted online, and became the centre of a long argument over how far the state could police internet speech. On March 24, 2015, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional for violating the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
The court held the provision vague and overbroad, and said it did not require the communication to have a tendency to cause an immediate threat to public safety or tranquility. It also did not distinguish between information sent to a large audience and a message sent to one person. Terms such as “grossly offensive”, “annoying” and “inconvenient” could cover speech that neither affected a person’s reputation nor amounted to an offence under penal law.
“Hence, the drafting will be done in a way that these shortcomings pointed out by the SC in the past will be taken into consideration,” an official said.
Sources said the safeguards were considered important because attempts by other states to legislate on social-media content have drawn criticism and legal challenge on the ground that they resembled Section 66A and could meet the same fate.
In 2020, Kerala amended its Police Act through an ordinance to criminalise communication that was threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory, punishable with up to three years in prison, a fine of up to Rs 10,000, or both. It was withdrawn after opposition and petitions in court.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced the committee on the floor of the Assembly in May, replying to an issue raised by BJP MLA Rahul Kul. Fadnavis said there was a growing trend of people using social media platforms to defame others without evidence or proof.
The Government Resolution constituting the panel was issued on May 8, 2026. Headed by the state DGP, it includes secretaries from the Law and Judiciary, IT, and Women and Child Development departments, and the Additional Director General of Police, Maharashtra Cyber. Its mandate was to examine existing provisions and explore new legislation or amendments to deal with social-media defamation in the wake of the Section 66A verdict. It was given three months to report and was authorised to call in experts.
The Law and Judiciary Department will now give its opinion, after which the proposal goes to the state government. Even if the state legislature clears the amendment, it cannot come into force until the Centre examines it and the President gives assent.
