Which of the following is not considered defamation under Section 356 of BNS?

This answer is based on the Exceptions provided under Section 356 of the BNS (which corresponds to Section 499 of the old IPC). 1. The General Rule (Defamation) Section 356(1) defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing/having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. 2. The Exception (Why the answer is "Not Defamation") The BNS retains the classic exceptions to defamation found in the old IPC.

• Exception 2 (Public conduct of public servants): It states that it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
• Since the option specifies that the opinion is expressed in "good faith" regarding "public functions," it falls squarely within this legal protection.

3. Why the other options ARE Defamation:

• "Imputing a loathsome state of body..." : This falls under Explanation 4 of Section 356(1). An imputation that lowers the moral character or implies a loathsome state is defamation.
• "Making a false statement about a deceased person..." : This falls under Explanation 1 of Section 356(1). Defaming a deceased person is an offence if the imputation would have hurt their reputation if living, and is intended to hurt the feelings of their family.
• "Publishing a false imputation to support personal profit" / "Publishing... knowingly" : These fit the core definition of defamation (intent to harm/knowledge of harm) without falling under any "Good Faith" exception.

Summary