Section146
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Unlawful compulsory labour

In force From 01 Jul 2024 Act 45 of 2023 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 45 of 2023 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 25 Dec 2023 In force 01 Jul 2024

Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with unlawful compulsory labour. Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.

Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 146, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).

Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code

IPC 374 Unlawful compulsory labour Text carried over almost unchanged 93%

Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.

Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.

How this offence is classified

From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.

OffencePunishment CognizableBailableTriable by
Unlawful compulsory labour. Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both. Cognizable. Bailable. Any Magistrate.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. Pydhonie Police Station vs Nazibur Rehman Akmal Nagori USec. 374 IPC

    ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAZGAON 06 Dec 2018 Persuasive (Other High Court/District Court) CNR No. MHMM120021172013

    Decided under Indian Penal Code 374, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    In criminal prosecutions involving child labour offences, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with consistent, credible, and procedurally sound evidence. Significant inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding material facts (such as the number of alleged victims), failure to name and identify alleged victims despite claims of thorough inquiry, procedural irregularities in evidence collection (such as panchnama preparation at police station rather than at the spot), and absence of documentary evidence establishing essential elements of the offence (such as proprietorship of the establishment) collectively render the prosecution's case unreliable and warrant acquittal. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

    On this section: Unlawful compulsion of persons - Court examined whether the accused unlawfully compelled the alleged child labourers against their will. The court found insufficient evidence to prove this element beyond reasonable doubt.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Questions about Section 146

What have the courts held on Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Pydhonie Police Station vs Nazibur Rehman Akmal Nagori USec. 374 IPC (06 Dec 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 374, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Unlawful compulsion of persons - Court examined whether the accused unlawfully compelled the alleged child labourers against their will. The court found insufficient evidence to prove this element beyond reasonable doubt.

Is Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?

Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Is Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?

Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.

How do I find court cases under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 146, section 146 BNS, section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 146 3 in hindi and bns 146 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Pydhonie Police Station vs Nazibur Rehman Akmal Nagori USec. 374 IPC (06 Dec 2018).

What should I read with Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?

It carries forward IPC 374 (Unlawful compulsory labour), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.

When did Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?

Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 146, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.