Fake Profiles and Online Defamation in Hyderabad: What to Do and the Law
A fake profile uses your name, photographs or identity on a social media platform without your permission. Online defamation is a false or damaging post, comment or image about you that harms your reputation. Both can be reported to the platform and the police, and can be the subject of a complaint or suit in court. This guide explains how to ask for the content to be taken down, which laws apply, how a complaint is filed in Hyderabad, and the time limits that matter.
What to do first · Asking for removal · Criminal law · Defamation · Filing a complaint · Civil remedies · Time limits
What to do first
- Keep the evidence. Take screenshots of the fake profile or the post, with the profile link (URL), the username, the date and time, and any messages sent from it. Keep a list of the people who received messages from the fake account. It is advisable to do this before reporting, since removed content may no longer be visible to you.
- Warn your contacts that a fake account is using your name, so they do not respond to requests from it.
- Report it to the platform through its reporting tool or grievance officer (see the next section).
- Report it to the police on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) or to the Hyderabad City Cyber Crimes Police Station, which lists “Fake Profiles on Social Media”, “Whatsapp DP Frauds” and identity theft among the crimes it handles (WhatsApp and phone 87126 66346, 24/7). That page asks victims of cyber fraud who have lost less than Rs 1 lakh to approach their local police station. The Telangana Police Women Safety Wing’s Cyber Module handles impersonation and fake profiles targeting women and children (helpline 040 27852246).
- If money was asked for or paid through the fake account, report it on 1930 at once.
The Telangana Cyber Security Bureau describes a common pattern: fraudsters copy the display picture of a friend, relative or employer, create an urgent situation, and ask for money. In August 2026, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) warned about “Boss Scam” frauds in which a senior executive’s WhatsApp account is taken over, or a number is saved as “CEO”, to instruct staff to transfer funds. It advised verifying any urgent payment request by a direct voice call or in person.
Asking for removal
Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended in February 2026:
- Impersonation and intimate images, two hours: on a complaint by you, or by anyone on your behalf, about content that is prima facie intimate imagery of you, or “in the nature of impersonation in an electronic form, including artificially morphed images” of you, the platform must take all reasonable and practicable measures to remove or disable access to it within two hours (rule 3(2)(b)). The Ministry of Electronics and IT’s standard operating procedure for this rule describes it in terms of intimate and morphed images; whether a platform treats an ordinary fake profile under the two-hour rule is not settled.
- Removal requests, 36 hours: platforms must make reasonable efforts, themselves and through their users, not to host content that impersonates another person (rule 3(1)(b)(vi)), and a complaint asking for removal of such content is to be resolved within 36 hours (proviso to rule 3(2)(a)(i)).
- Other complaints, seven days: the grievance officer must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within seven days (rule 3(2)(a)(i)). Rule 3(1)(b) no longer lists “defamatory” content by name. A complaint made only on the ground that content “violates any law” (rule 3(1)(b)(xi)) is outside the 36-hour proviso and falls under the seven-day period. Which category a particular post falls under depends on its content.
- Appeal: if the grievance officer does not resolve your complaint in time, or you disagree with the decision, you can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days of receiving the grievance officer’s communication (rule 3A). If you receive no communication, take advice promptly on when the period runs. The Committee works online, at gac.gov.in.
- Court order or government notice, three hours: where a platform receives an order of a court, or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised government officer (not below Joint Secretary rank, or a Director where no Joint Secretary is appointed, or for the police not below Deputy Inspector General), it must remove the content within three hours (rule 3(1)(d)).
- Records are kept: a platform must preserve removed content and the associated records for 180 days for investigation (rule 3(1)(g)), and must provide information to an authorised government agency within 72 hours of an order (rule 3(1)(j)).
Under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, a platform is not liable for content posted by others if its role is limited as section 79(2) describes and it observes due diligence, but it loses that protection if, on receiving actual knowledge or a government notification, it fails to remove unlawful content expeditiously. The Supreme Court held in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) that “actual knowledge” means a court order or a notification by the appropriate government or its agency, relating to the grounds in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Rule 3(1)(d) of the current Rules likewise provides that actual knowledge arises only from a court order or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised officer.
Criminal law that may apply
Neither the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita nor the Information Technology Act uses the words “fake profile”. Whether creating or using one is an offence depends on the intention with which it is made and what it is used for:
| Provision | What it covers | Maximum punishment | Police power |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNS s.319, cheating by personation | cheating by pretending to be another person, real or imaginary | 5 years, or fine, or both | cognizable, bailable |
| IT Act s.66D | cheating by personation using a communication device or computer resource | 3 years and fine up to Rs 1 lakh | cognizable, bailable (IT Act s.77B) |
| IT Act s.66C, identity theft | fraudulently or dishonestly using another person’s electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature | 3 years and fine up to Rs 1 lakh | cognizable, bailable (IT Act s.77B) |
| BNS s.336(4) | forgery of a document or electronic record intending to harm a person’s reputation | 3 years and fine | cognizable, bailable |
| BNS s.336(3) | forgery of a document or electronic record intending it to be used for cheating | 7 years and fine | cognizable, non-bailable |
| BNS s.356, defamation | publishing an imputation intending or knowing it will harm a person’s reputation | 2 years simple imprisonment, or fine, or both, or community service | non-cognizable, bailable |
| BNS s.351, criminal intimidation | threatening injury to a person, their reputation or property to cause alarm or compel them | 2 years, or fine, or both (more in the cases in s.351(3) and (4)) | non-cognizable, bailable |
| BNS s.78, stalking | a man monitoring a woman’s use of the internet, email or other electronic communication | 3 years and fine (first conviction) | first conviction: cognizable, bailable |
| BNS s.79 | with intent to insult a woman’s modesty, words, sounds, gestures or objects in any form meant to be heard or seen by her, or intruding on her privacy | 3 years simple imprisonment and fine | cognizable, bailable |
A person makes a false electronic record if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes or transmits an electronic record intending it to be believed that it was made or transmitted by, or with the authority of, a person who did not make or authorise it (BNS section 335). Making a false electronic record with one of the intentions listed in section 336(1) is forgery, punishable with up to 2 years, or fine, or both (section 336(2)); the higher punishments where the intention is cheating or harming reputation are shown in the table. Section 66A of the IT Act, which once punished “offensive” online messages, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) and has since been omitted from the Act, so it does not apply.
Online defamation
Defamation under BNS section 356 is making or publishing, by words, signs or visible representations, an imputation about a person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe it will harm, their reputation. The section covers making or publishing an imputation “in any manner”. An imputation harms reputation only if, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, it lowers the person’s moral or intellectual character, their character in respect of caste or calling, or their credit, or causes it to be believed that their body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state (Explanation 4). An imputation about a company or an association can also be defamation (Explanation 2).
The section lists ten exceptions, including:
- imputing something true about a person, where it is for the public good that it be published; whether it is for the public good is a question of fact (Exception 1);
- expressing an opinion in good faith on a public servant’s conduct in public functions, or on any person’s conduct touching a public question (Exceptions 2 and 3);
- a substantially true report of court proceedings (Exception 4);
- an opinion in good faith on a performance the author has submitted to the public’s judgment, such as a book or a public speech (Exception 6);
- an imputation made in good faith to protect one’s own or another’s interests, or for the public good (Exception 9).
Whether a particular post is defamatory, or falls within an exception, depends on the facts and is decided by the court.
Filing a complaint
- Defamation is complaint-only: a court can take cognizance of defamation only on a complaint made by a person aggrieved by it (BNSS section 222(1)). Because it is non-cognizable, the police cannot investigate defamation on its own without a Magistrate’s order; the police station enters the information in a register and refers the informant to the Magistrate (section 174(1) and (2)). The route is a private complaint to the Magistrate, who examines the complainant and witnesses on oath and gives the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance (section 223).
- Where cognizable offences are involved: if the facts also disclose a cognizable offence, such as cheating by personation or identity theft, the whole case is deemed cognizable (section 174(4)), and an FIR can be registered at any police station irrespective of where the offence was committed (zero FIR), or the information can be given electronically and signed within three days (section 173(1)). Even then, a court can take cognizance of the defamation itself only on a complaint by the person aggrieved (section 222(1)). For cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, first hold a preliminary enquiry, within 14 days, into whether there is a prima facie case (section 173(3)).
- Woman complainant: where a woman gives information about stalking or insulting her modesty (BNS sections 78 and 79, among others), it is to be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer (first proviso to section 173(1)).
- If the police refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence: send the substance in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned (in a commissionerate such as Hyderabad, written representations can also be made to the officers above the Station House Officer, from the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners of Police up to the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of Police), and if that does not result in action, apply to the Magistrate by an application supported by an affidavit (sections 173(4) and 175(3)).
The Cyberabad Cyber Crimes Police Station states that it registers complaints involving “grave social media crimes” as FIRs and others as petitions, and that cyber cases are also registered at local police stations.
Civil remedies
- Suit for compensation: the Limitation Act sets one-year periods for suits for compensation for libel and slander (Articles 75 and 76).
- Where to sue: a suit for compensation for a wrong to the person can be filed, at the plaintiff’s option, where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain; the Code of Civil Procedure’s own illustration is a person in Delhi publishing in Calcutta statements defamatory of another, who may sue in either place (section 19).
- Temporary injunction: in a suit to restrain an injury of any kind, the plaintiff can apply to the court to restrain the injury at any time after the suit is filed, before or after judgment (Order XXXIX rule 2). The court is ordinarily to give notice to the other side first, unless the delay would defeat the purpose (rule 3). Where it grants an injunction without notice, it must record its reasons, and it is to try to decide the application within 30 days of granting it (rules 3 and 3A). Disobeying an injunction can lead to attachment of property and civil prison for up to three months (rule 2A).
- Court order for takedown: an order of a competent court is one of the two ways a platform’s “actual knowledge” arises under rule 3(1)(d), after which it must remove the content within three hours.
Time limits
| Step | Time limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Civil suit for compensation for libel | 1 year from publication | Limitation Act, Article 75 |
| Civil suit for compensation for slander | 1 year from when the words were spoken, or when the special damage results if the words are not actionable in themselves | Limitation Act, Article 76 |
| Criminal complaint or police information for an offence punishable with imprisonment of more than one year and up to three years, which includes defamation (BNS s.356), criminal intimidation under s.351(2), forgery to harm reputation (s.336(4)), stalking (s.78, where the accused has no earlier conviction for stalking), BNS s.79, and IT Act ss.66C and 66D | 3 years, counted to the date the complaint is filed or the information is recorded by the police. The period starts on the date of the offence or, if the offence or the offender was not known, on the first day it became known to you or to the police, whichever is earlier | BNSS sections 514 and 515 |
| Appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee | 30 days from the grievance officer’s communication | IT Rules, rule 3A |
Offences punishable with more than three years, such as cheating by personation under BNS section 319 or forgery for cheating under section 336(3), are not subject to the limitation in section 514.
Related guides: cyber crime, sextortion in Hyderabad, cyber laws in India and digital arrest scam.
Frequently asked questions
How do I get a fake profile of me removed?
Complain to the platform’s grievance officer. A complaint asking for removal of content that impersonates another person is to be resolved within 36 hours (rule 3(1)(b)(vi) and the proviso to rule 3(2)(a)(i) of the IT Rules, 2021, as amended in February 2026). Rule 3(2)(b) separately requires the platform to take all reasonable and practicable measures, within two hours, to remove content that is impersonation in electronic form, including morphed images of you; whether a platform treats an ordinary fake profile under that rule is not settled. If the grievance officer does not resolve it in time, or you disagree with the decision, you can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days of the grievance officer’s communication.
Is creating a fake profile a crime?
Neither the BNS nor the IT Act uses the words “fake profile”. Whether creating or using one is an offence depends on the intention and the use, for example, to cheat by personation (BNS section 319 or IT Act section 66D), to use someone’s password or other unique identification feature (IT Act section 66C), to forge an electronic record to harm reputation (BNS section 336(4)), or to defame, intimidate or stalk.
Will the police register an FIR for online defamation?
Defamation is non-cognizable and can be prosecuted only on a complaint by the person aggrieved (BNSS section 222), so the case is brought by a complaint to the Magistrate. If the same facts disclose a cognizable offence, such as cheating by personation, the case is deemed cognizable (BNSS section 174(4)) and an FIR can be registered for that offence; a court can still take cognizance of the defamation itself only on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
How long do I have to file a defamation case?
A civil suit for compensation for libel must be filed within one year of publication (Limitation Act, Article 75). For a criminal complaint for defamation, the complaint must be filed within three years, counted from the offence or, if the offence or the offender was not known, from the first day it became known to you or to the police, whichever is earlier (BNSS sections 514 and 515).
Is a negative review defamation?
It depends on the facts. Defamation requires an imputation that harms reputation, and section 356 of the BNS has exceptions, including truth published for the public good and opinions expressed in good faith on certain matters. Whether a particular review is defamatory is for the court to decide.
Where can I report a fake profile in Hyderabad?
On the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), or to the Hyderabad City Cyber Crimes Police Station, which lists fake profiles on social media among the crimes it handles (WhatsApp and phone 87126 66346, 24/7); that page asks victims of cyber fraud who have lost less than Rs 1 lakh to approach their local police station. The Telangana Police Women Safety Wing’s Cyber Module handles impersonation and fake profiles targeting women and children.
Can a company take action for online defamation?
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, an imputation concerning a company or an association of persons as such may amount to defamation (Explanation 2 to section 356), and “person” is defined to include a company (section 2(26)), so a company can make a criminal complaint as a person aggrieved (BNSS section 222). Whether a company can also bring a civil suit for compensation depends on the facts.
For a discussion about a fake profile or online defamation matter with Musab Hashmi & Associates, call +91 89771 24916 or send an enquiry. Do not include identity numbers or copies of documents in the first message.
General legal information, not legal advice. Checked on 26 October 2026 against the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and its First Schedule, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in the Ministry of Electronics and IT’s consolidated text (updated as on 10 February 2026, with the corrigenda of 26 February 2026), the Ministry’s standard operating procedure on non-consensual intimate imagery under rule 3(2)(b), the Limitation Act, 1963, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a Press Information Bureau release of 7 August 2026, and the official pages of the Telangana Cyber Security Bureau, the Hyderabad and Cyberabad Cyber Crimes Police Stations and the Telangana Police Women Safety Wing. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (24 March 2015) was read from the full text published on Indian Kanoon; the Supreme Court’s own copy could not be reached.