Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court
Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court. Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Section 16, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 78 Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 78, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant, including a judge, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 166, and 167 IPC (offences committable only by public servants), previous sanction of the appropriate Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C is a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of such offences. Additionally, judicial acts performed by judges in exercise of their judicial powers are protected by Section 77 IPC, and official actions taken pursuant to judicial orders are protected by Section 78 IPC. Private criminal complaints against judges for acts performed in their judicial capacity are not maintainable, and the proper remedy is through appellate courts, not collateral criminal proceedings.
On this section: Protects acts done pursuant to judgment or order of court; applied to protect disciplinary proceedings and official actions based on the High Court's judicial order
-
Sushil Kumar vs C.b.i.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 78, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the court is satisfied that there exists a possibility that the accused to be summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction must be based on material evidence and cannot be based on conjectural or speculative grounds. The court cannot use Section 311 CrPC to introduce an entirely new case theory different from the original FIR or initial statements of the complainant. An order summoning a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, which adversely affects the rights of a person not originally a party to the proceedings and who would have no opportunity to challenge it after final judgment, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC and can be revised by the High Court.
On this section: Act of person justified by law - the Additional Sessions Judge considered whether the bailiff was acting as a public servant in discharging his duties as a bailiff, which would provide justification
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 16
What have the courts held on Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana (17 Sep 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 78, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Protects acts done pursuant to judgment or order of court; applied to protect disciplinary proceedings and official actions based on the High Court's judicial order. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2006 to 2010.
How do I find court cases under Section 16 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 16, section 16 BNS, section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana (17 Sep 2010).
What should I read with Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 78 (Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 16, 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
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.