Offences Against the State, Public Tranquillity, Religion, Organised Crime & Terrorism (BNS) — Criminal Law I Notes

Offences against the State

For 154 years, sedition (old s.124A IPC) — Macaulay’s colonial weapon, once used to jail Tilak and Gandhi — hung over Indian public life. The BNS of 2023 abolished the word “sedition” and replaced it with a new offence (s.152) aimed at acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India — a change the exam now regularly tests.

The State must protect its own existence, so the gravest offences in the code are those against the State itself (ss.147–158, BNS [old ss.121–130 IPC]).

Waging war — s.147, BNS [old s.121 IPC]. Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts or abets it, is punished with death or imprisonment for life and fine. “Waging war” is an organised, insurrection-style attempt to overthrow or coerce the State by force — not an ordinary riot. Collecting arms or men with that intent (s.148), and concealing a design to wage war (s.149), are separately punished.

s.152, BNS — the new “sedition” successor. This is the provision that replaced old s.124A. Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, signs, visible representation, electronic communication, financial means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities, or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, is punished with imprisonment for life or up to seven years and fine.

Key differences from old sedition:

  • It drops the word “sedition” and the vague “disaffection towards the Government.”
  • It focuses on sovereignty, unity and integrity — secession, armed rebellion, subversion — not mere criticism of the government.
  • An Explanation clarifies that comments expressing disapprobation of government measures, with a view to lawful change, without exciting the prohibited activities, are not an offence — preserving legitimate dissent.

The free-speech balance. The Supreme Court had already read down old sedition in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962), confining it to acts with a tendency to incite violence or public disorder, and had suspended it entirely in S.G. Vombatkere (2022). s.152 must be read consistently with Article 19(1)(a) and the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2) — it punishes incitement to rebellion, not disagreement.

🧩 Worked example. A distributes material urging an armed uprising to break a State away from India, and organises funding for it. This falls within s.152 — he is exciting secession and armed rebellion, endangering the unity and integrity of India. But a person who merely writes a scathing article criticising a government policy and demanding its repeal through lawful means is protected by the Explanation and by Article 19(1)(a) — that is dissent, not an offence against the State.

s.152, BNS: “Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India… shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years…”

In Simple Terms: the BNS scrapped the colonial word “sedition” and replaced it with an offence aimed squarely at those who try to break India apart — inciting rebellion or secession. Ordinary, even harsh, criticism of the government, seeking lawful change, is not caught.

flowchart TD
    ST["OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ss.147–158"] --> W["s.147 Waging war → death/life"]
    ST --> S152["s.152 (new) — exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversion, endangering unity/integrity"]
    S152 --> EXP["Explanation: lawful disapproval / criticism = NOT an offence"]
    S152 --> FS["Read with Art. 19(1)(a) & 19(2); Kedar Nath — incitement to violence"]

Case Laws

  • Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) — sedition confined to acts with a tendency to incite violence or public disorder; mere criticism is protected.
  • Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) — casual slogans, without inciting anyone to violence, are not sedition/against the State.

Offences relating to elections, coin and currency

Offences relating to coin and currency (ss.178–188, BNS [old ss.230–263A IPC]). The State alone may issue money, so counterfeiting coin, currency notes or bank notes (s.178), using or possessing counterfeit money knowing it to be false (ss.179–181), and making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting (s.182) are grave offences, punishable up to life imprisonment for counterfeiting Government-issued currency. Government stamps are protected the same way (counterfeiting, ss.184–188).

Offences relating to elections (ss.169–177, BNS [old ss.171A–171I IPC]). These protect the integrity of the democratic process:

  • Bribery (s.170) — giving or accepting gratification to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting;
  • Undue influence (s.171) — interfering with the free exercise of the electoral right (threats, coercion);
  • Personation (s.172) — voting in another’s name, or voting more than once;
  • False statements (s.173), illegal payments, and failure to keep election accounts.

The unifying idea. Both clusters protect institutions on which the State rests — its currency and its elections. Counterfeiting attacks the economy; electoral offences attack democracy. Both are treated as public wrongs of a high order.

🧩 Worked example. A prints fake ₹500 notes and passes them off as genuine. He has committed counterfeiting currency (s.178) and using counterfeit currency as genuine (s.179) — punishable up to life. Separately, a candidate who pays voters to vote for him commits bribery at an election (s.170) — an offence against the democratic process, whatever the small sums involved.

s.170, BNS (bribery): “Whoever… gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right… commits the offence of bribery.”

In Simple Terms: the law fiercely protects two pillars of the State — its money and its elections. Faking currency strikes at the economy; buying votes strikes at democracy; both are serious crimes.

flowchart TD
    E["ELECTIONS, COIN & CURRENCY"] --> CC["COIN/CURRENCY ss.178–188 — counterfeiting → up to life"]
    E --> EL["ELECTIONS ss.169–177 — bribery, undue influence, personation, false statements"]

Case Laws

  • Mobarik Ali Ahmed (1957) — (Unit 1) economic offences with impact in India are triable here; relevant to cross-border counterfeiting.

Offences against public tranquillity

Five angry men with a shared unlawful purpose become, in law, something more dangerous than five individuals — an unlawful assembly. Add force, and it becomes a riot, in which each member answers for what the mob does. The law fears the crowd, because a crowd emboldens the individual.

Unlawful assembly — s.189, BNS [old s.141 IPC]. An assembly of five or more persons is “unlawful” if their common object is one of the five prohibited objects:

  1. to overawe by force the Government, Parliament, or a public servant;
  2. to resist the execution of law or legal process;
  3. to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any offence;
  4. by force to take or obtain possession of property, or deprive someone of a right of way/water; or
  5. by force to compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do.

Being a member of an unlawful assembly is itself an offence (s.189(2)).

Common object — s.190, BNS [old s.149 IPC]. Where an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, or such as the members knew to be likely, every member is guilty of that offence — this is the constructive liability discussed in Unit 1 (Topic 4). Membership plus the shared object fastens the whole mob’s crime onto each member.

Rioting — s.191, BNS [old s.146 IPC]. Where force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member in prosecution of its common object, every member is guilty of rioting. So: unlawful assembly + force = riot.

Affray — s.194, BNS [old s.159 IPC]. When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they commit an affray.

Riot v affray (a common exam distinction):

  • Numbers. Riot needs five or more (an unlawful assembly); affray needs two or more.
  • Place. Affray must be in a public place; a riot may be anywhere.
  • Common object. A riot has a common object; an affray is a spontaneous fight with none.
  • Nature. Rioting is an offence against public tranquillity flowing from an unlawful assembly; affray is a lesser public-order offence — a public brawl.

🧩 Worked example. Forty villagers gather with sticks intending by force to demolish a wall they claim encroaches on common land (an unlawful assembly — common object under s.189(4)). In the melee one of them, in prosecution of that object, grievously hurts the wall’s owner. Under common object (s.190), every member who shared the object is guilty of that grievous hurt, and because force was used, all are guilty of rioting (s.191) — even those who struck no blow. Contrast: two men who trade punches on a busy street commit only affray (s.194).

s.189(1), BNS: “An assembly of five or more persons is designated an ‘unlawful assembly’, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is — First — To overawe by criminal force… the Government… Second — To resist the execution of any law… Third — To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence…”

In Simple Terms: five or more people with a shared unlawful purpose are an unlawful assembly; if they use force, it becomes a riot, and then every member is guilty of whatever the mob does in pursuit of that shared purpose — not just the one who struck the blow.

flowchart TD
    PT["PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY"] --> UA["UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY s.189 — 5+, one of 5 common objects"]
    UA --> CO["Common object s.190 — every member liable for the mob's offence"]
    UA -->|"+ force/violence"| RIOT["RIOTING s.191 — every member guilty"]
    PT --> AFF["AFFRAY s.194 — 2+, fighting in a PUBLIC place, disturbing peace"]

Case Laws

  • Moti Das v State of Bihar (1954) — an assembly lawful at the start can become unlawful; membership with the common object is the test.
  • Masalti v State of U.P. (1965) — under s.149, every member sharing the common object is liable for the offence committed in its prosecution.

Promoting enmity between groups

Promoting enmity — s.196, BNS [old s.153A IPC]. Whoever, by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or does acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony, or organises movements/drills intending participants to use violence against such groups, is punished with imprisonment up to three years (up to five years if committed in a place of worship).

Imputations prejudicial to national integration — s.197, BNS [old s.153B IPC]. Punishes assertions that a class of persons cannot, by reason of their religion/race/language, bear true faith and allegiance to India, or denying them their rights as citizens, or asserting they should be denied such rights — up to three years (five in a place of worship).

The mens rea and the free-speech balance. Both require an intention or knowledge of promoting disharmony. They must be read with Article 19(1)(a) and its reasonable restrictions (Art. 19(2)) — the offence is aimed at hate speech that promotes enmity, not at every strong or unpopular opinion. The likely breach of public tranquillity is the touchstone.

🧩 Worked example. A puts up posters in a public square urging people of one community to attack another and portraying that other community as enemies of the nation. This is promoting enmity between groups (s.196) and, in asserting they cannot be loyal citizens, s.197 as well. The intent to promote hatred and the tendency to disturb public tranquillity make it an offence — distinct from a mere critical comment about a community’s practices made without inciting hatred.

s.196(1), BNS: “Whoever — (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community… disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different… groups… shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

In Simple Terms: deliberately stirring up hatred between religions, castes, races or language groups is a crime. The law targets hate speech that endangers communal harmony — not honest debate or criticism.

flowchart TD
    EN["ENMITY / NATIONAL INTEGRATION"] --> S196["s.196 — promoting enmity between groups (religion/race/caste/language)"]
    EN --> S197["s.197 — imputations that a class cannot be loyal citizens"]
    EN --> B["Intent/knowledge required; read with Art. 19(2); worse in a place of worship"]

Case Laws

  • Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) — casual slogans without intent to promote enmity or incite violence are not caught.
  • Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of A.P. (1997) — mens rea (intent to promote enmity between groups) is essential to s.153A/s.153B.

Offences relating to religion

The BNS protects religious feelings and freedom of worship through ss.298–302 [old ss.295–298 IPC]:

  • s.298 — Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of a class of persons;
  • s.299 — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or religious beliefs;
  • s.300 — Disturbing a religious assembly lawfully engaged in worship;
  • s.301 — Trespassing on burial places or offering indignity to a corpse;
  • s.302 — Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.

The common thread — deliberate and malicious intent. Every one of these offences requires a deliberate and malicious intention to insult or wound religious feelings. This is what separates a punishable insult from ordinary discussion, criticism or scholarship about religion. A good-faith academic critique of a religious practice is not an offence; a calculated act designed to outrage believers is.

🧩 Worked example. A, intending to insult a religious community, deliberately defiles their place of worship. This is an offence under s.298 (defiling a place of worship with intent to insult a religion). But a historian who writes a critical study questioning a religious practice, without any deliberate malicious intent to outrage feelings, is not guilty — the “deliberate and malicious” element is missing (Ramji Lal Modi).

s.299, BNS: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished…”

In Simple Terms: the law protects people’s religious feelings from deliberate, malicious insult — defiling a temple, disrupting worship, mocking a faith to wound believers. But honest criticism or study of religion, without malice, is not a crime.

flowchart TD
    RG["OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION ss.298–302"] --> A["s.298 Defiling a place of worship"]
    RG --> B["s.299 Outraging religious feelings"]
    RG --> C["s.300 Disturbing a religious assembly"]
    RG --> D["s.302 Wounding religious feelings by words"]
    RG --> K["Common thread: DELIBERATE & MALICIOUS intent"]

Case Laws

  • Ramji Lal Modi v State of U.P. (1957) — upheld s.295A as a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2); it punishes only deliberate and malicious insults, not all criticism.

Organised crime and petty organised crime

Organised crime — s.111, BNS — NEW. For the first time in the general penal code, the BNS defines and punishes organised crime: any continuing unlawful activity — including kidnapping, extortion, contract killing, land grabbing, economic offences, cyber-crime, trafficking in persons, drugs or arms — carried on by a person singly or jointly as part of an organised crime syndicate, or on its behalf, by use of violence, threat, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means to gain a material or financial benefit. Where such organised crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₹10 lakh; otherwise, imprisonment of not less than five years up to life. Being a member of a syndicate, harbouring its members, or holding syndicate property is separately punishable.

Previously such offences were tackled only by special State laws (like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, MCOCA); the BNS brings organised crime into the general criminal law nationwide.

Petty organised crime — s.112, BNS — NEW. A lesser but persistent category: theft, snatching, cheating, unauthorised betting, sale of tickets, and similar acts committed by a gang or organised group causing general feelings of insecurity among citizens — punishable with imprisonment of one to seven years and fine. It targets the organised pickpocket rings, ticket-black-marketeers and gambling gangs that plague public life.

🧩 Worked example. A syndicate systematically extorts “protection money” from shopkeepers across a city, using threats and violence, sharing the proceeds. Under s.111 each participant — the enforcers, the organisers, those who harbour them — is guilty of organised crime, and if any extortion results in a death, they face death or life. A gang of coordinated pickpockets working the local buses, by contrast, falls under petty organised crime (s.112).

s.111(1), BNS: “Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking… by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate… by use of violence, threat or intimidation or coercion… to gain direct or indirect material benefit… is organised crime.”

In Simple Terms: the BNS makes running or belonging to a crime syndicate — the mafia-style, profit-driven, continuing criminal operation — a serious offence in the ordinary criminal law, with the death penalty where it kills. A lesser section catches organised gangs of petty thieves and cheats.

flowchart TD
    OC["ORGANISED CRIME (new)"] --> S111["s.111 — syndicate; continuing unlawful activity for material benefit"]
    S111 --> A["Extortion, contract killing, trafficking, cyber-crime, land grabbing…"]
    S111 --> B["If DEATH → death/life + ₹10L fine; else 5 yrs–life"]
    OC --> S112["s.112 PETTY organised crime — gang theft/snatching/betting → 1–7 yrs"]

Case Laws

  • State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008) — upheld MCOCA’s organised-crime framework; the conceptual foundation the BNS now generalises.

Terrorist act

Terrorist act — s.113, BNS — NEW. The BNS brings terrorism into the general penal code. A person commits a terrorist act who does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India, or to strike terror in the people, by:

  • using bombs, explosives, firearms, poisonous gases, chemicals or other dangerous substances;
  • causing death or injury, damage to property, disruption of essential services or supplies; or
  • damaging the monetary stability of India (counterfeiting currency, etc.).

Punishment. Where the terrorist act causes death, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life without parole and fine. In other cases, imprisonment of not less than five years up to life. Conspiracy, organising camps, recruiting, and harbouring for a terrorist act are separately punishable.

Relationship with the UAPA. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) already defines and punishes terrorist acts. s.113 gives an overlapping general provision — an officer of a certain rank decides whether to invoke the UAPA or the BNS in a given case. The BNS therefore makes terrorism prosecutable under the ordinary code, not only the special law.

🧩 Worked example. A plants a bomb in a crowded market intending to strike terror and destabilise public order; the explosion kills several people. He has committed a terrorist act under s.113, and because it caused death, he faces death or life imprisonment without parole. Those who conspired, funded, or harboured him are separately liable under the same section.

s.113(1), BNS: “Whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror… in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country… commits a terrorist act.”

In Simple Terms: using bombs, weapons or other dangerous means to kill, terrorise the public, or attack the security or economy of India is now a terrorist act under the ordinary criminal code — punishable with death where it kills.

flowchart TD
    TA["TERRORIST ACT s.113 (new)"] --> I["INTENT: threaten India's unity/security/economy OR strike terror"]
    TA --> M["MEANS: bombs, firearms, poison, chemicals; death/injury; disrupt essentials"]
    TA --> P["If DEATH → death/life w/o parole; else 5 yrs–life"]
    TA --> U["Overlaps UAPA 1967 — officer decides which to invoke"]

Case Laws

  • State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005) — the Parliament-attack case: the framework of terrorism prosecution the BNS now embeds in the general code.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNS topics

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam