Unlawful assembly
Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--- (a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is---
(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.---An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
(2) Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly and such member shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(5) Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.---If the assembly is an unlawful assembly within the meaning of sub-section (1), the offender shall be punishable under sub-section (3).
(6) Whoever hires or engages, or employs, or promotes, or connives at the hiring, engagement or employment of any person to join or become a member of any unlawful assembly, shall be punishable as a member of such unlawful assembly, and for any offence which may be committed by any such person as a member of such unlawful assembly in pursuance of such hiring, engagement or employment, in the same manner as if he had been a member of such unlawful assembly, or himself had committed such offence.
(7) Whoever harbours, receives or assembles, in any house or premises in his occupation or charge, or under his control any persons knowing that such persons have been hired, engaged or employed, or are about to be hired, engaged or employed, to join or become members of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(8) Whoever is engaged, or hired, or offers or attempts to be hired or engaged, to do or assist in doing any of the acts specified in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(9) Whoever, being so engaged or hired as referred to in sub-section (8), goes armed, or engages or offers to go armed, with any deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 189, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 141 Unlawful assembly Close, with changes 85%
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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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. This section is classified 8 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Being member of an unlawful assembly. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly, knowing that it has been commanded to disperse. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Joining an unlawful assembly armed with any deadly weapon. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Knowingly joining or continuing in any assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Hiring, engaging or employing persons to take part in an unlawful assembly. | The same as for a member of such assembly, and for any offence committed by any member of such assembly. | Cognizable. | According as offence is bailable or non-is bailable. | The Court by which the offence triable. |
| Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Being hired to take part in an unlawful assembly or riot. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Or to go armed. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
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.
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 142, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death. If the evidence does not clearly establish this common object, and if the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons (which creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version), the conviction should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.
On this section: Membership of unlawful assembly - Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins or continues in it
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 142, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Defines membership of unlawful assembly. A person who is aware of facts rendering an assembly unlawful and intentionally joins or continues in it is a member.
-
State of Rajasthan vs Shvi Charan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 142, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC (Constructive Liability), the prosecution must establish: (I) An assembly of five or more persons; (II) The assembly was unlawful with a common object; and (III) The common object consisted of one or more of the illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC. Common object need not be formed prior to the incident but can be formed on the spur of the moment. Once such unlawful assembly with common object is proven, all members can be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of such common object, without requiring each member to commit an overt act. However, mere presence or association is insufficient; there must be evidence that each member intended to or knew of the likelihood of commission of the offence. Additionally, where injuries sustained by the accused are minor in nature, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis to reject clear, cogent and creditworthy prosecution evidence.
On this section: Requirement that accused must have intended to aid or known likelihood of commission of offence as member of unlawful assembly; basis for determining vicarious liability
-
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 142, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for a substantive offence (such as murder) committed by another member under Section 149 IPC unless there is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence establishing either: (a) that the accused shared the common object to commit that specific substantive offence, or (b) that the accused knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The mere fact of presence at the scene, participation in general violence, or use of force to accomplish a lesser common object (such as teaching someone a lesson) is insufficient to establish constructive liability for a substantive offence like murder. Eyewitness testimony must be consistent between the FIR and court deposition, and the evidence must clearly establish the nexus between each accused's actions and the fatal injury, or must establish knowledge that murder specifically was likely.
On this section: Knowingly joining or continuing in unlawful assembly; relevant to establishing membership of the appellants in the unlawful assembly
-
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 142, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly with multiple accused persons where eyewitness evidence is partisan due to factional rivalry: (1) Interested witnesses may be relied upon if found otherwise trustworthy and their testimony is examined with utmost care and caution; (2) The court must apply a rule of caution and convict only those accused whose presence is consistently established and whose specific overt acts in commission of the crime are clearly proved; (3) When determining the common object of an unlawful assembly, the object can evolve during the course of incident, and different members may share different objects at different stages—some sharing mere intent for grievous hurt while others share intent for murder if they specifically chase and attack the victim; (4) Regarding causation of death, when doubt exists about which specific individual inflicted the fatal blow, the safe course is to convict under Section 326 or 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC, unless there is clear evidence of murderous common object shared by at least five members of assembly.
On this section: Membership in unlawful assembly—requires awareness of facts making assembly unlawful and intentional joining or continuation in assembly
-
Yash Mahadeo Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra through Malegaon Police Station C R No 71 of 2026
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious violent crimes with allegations of conspiracy to commit murder (contract killing), where the investigation is ongoing, medical evidence shows grievous injury on vital parts of the body, witnesses have identified the accused, criminal antecedents exist, and there is demonstrable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, bail should be refused even if the accused have undergone substantial custody period, as the nature and gravity of the offence and investigative requirements outweigh the right to bail at the investigation stage.
On this section: Relates to causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety. Applied to the assault with sticks and stones.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The occurrence which is the subject-matter of the said case took place on 21.09.2024 and the case was registered on the same day under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) 115(2), 118(1), 324(4) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The offence under Section 110 of BNS also was added in the case in the course of the investigation. The detenu is the first accused in the …
-
… The last -: 4 :- prejudicial activity in which the detenu was involved is Crime No.290 of 2024 of Maranalloor Police Station registered on 07.07.2024 under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296, 74, 75(2), 76 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The detenu was arrested in connection with the said case on 07.07.2024 itself and he was enlarged on bail on 26.07.2024. The proposal for the detention under the Act was made by the competent authority on 26.07.2024 and the …
Questions about Section 189
What have the courts held on Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Parshuram vs State Of M.P. (11 Jan 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 142, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Membership of unlawful assembly - Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins or continues in it. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
Is Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 8 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 189 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 189 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 189, section 189 BNS, section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 189 2 section in hindi and bns 189 4. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Parshuram vs State Of M.P. (11 Jan 2021).
What should I read with Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 141 (Unlawful assembly), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 189, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.