Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. 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 or any other ground whatsoever, disharmo The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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 or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or
(c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 196, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 153A Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
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. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Promoting enmity between classes in place of worship, etc. | Imprisonment for 5 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-5.pdf 2021-03-25. Crl A 141/2021. Rao/Bhat. DATE-CHECK flagged 2020-07-06 FIR / 2020-07-04 Facebook dates (false positive); body is the named 25 Mar 2021 reportable. IPC 153A requires mens rea — intention to promote enmity between groups; the post must be read as a whole on a reasonable-person standard. 505(1)(c) likewise needs the statutory intent. Quashes the FIR. Prefer over Amish Devgan for 153A isolation. Do not remap 500 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 153A (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9605). The mens rea / read-as-a-whole holding carries to BNS 196.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion - Core charge in the case.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion - applied to charges against both Kar Sewaks and the accused leaders
-
Ranbir Yadav vs U. O. I
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Court has authority to monitor and oversee executive action and policy implementation in matters of fundamental rights protection, including racial discrimination. International human rights conventions ratified by India inform the interpretation of constitutional guarantees against discrimination. While courts cannot mandate legislation, they can ensure that executive commitments to address human rights violations are effectively implemented through establishment of dedicated monitoring mechanisms and oversight committees. The protection of citizens from discrimination based on regional origin is within the scope of Article 15 of the Constitution, and the government has a constitutional obligation under Article 51A(e) to take affirmative steps to prevent such discrimination.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language - applied to address hate crimes based on regional identity
-
Karma Dorjee vs U. O. I
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has jurisdiction to issue guidelines and establish monitoring mechanisms to prevent racial discrimination and atrocities against citizens on grounds of regional origin, particularly those from north-eastern states. Such discrimination violates Article 15 of the Constitution and fundamental duty under Article 51A(e). India's ratification of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires interpretation of constitutional guarantees against discrimination in light of international human rights obligations. While the court cannot mandate legislative amendments, it can direct implementation of policy recommendations accepted by the government through a dedicated monitoring committee structure to ensure accountability and prevent systemic racial discrimination.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. Court noted this provision exists but requires strengthening through amendments like proposed Section 153C.
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where statutory provisions provide comprehensive remedies for addressing hate speeches, and the existing legal regime is sufficiently developed to address the menace through enforcement by law enforcing agencies and executive bodies, courts should not issue new judicial directions that go beyond their separation of powers authority or create judicially unmanageable orders. Instead, courts should emphasize effective execution of existing law and request appropriate bodies like the Law Commission to undertake legislative study and make recommendations for strengthening the legal framework. Judicial activism, while legitimate for addressing legal vacuums or preventing fraud upon statutes, must yield to separation of powers principles and the primacy of legislative action when the legislature has already expressed its will through comprehensive statutory schemes.
On this section: Offences promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion and race; interpreted as designed to check communal and separatist tendencies and secure fraternity; Court emphasized that while religious freedom includes liberty to express religious opinions and criticize beliefs, such liberty comes with responsibility
-
Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a Supreme Court judgment's manifest tenor and import intends to grant identical relief to multiple parties before the Court and represented by counsel, but due to inadvertence or mistake, the names of some parties are omitted from the operative portion, the Court may issue clarification or modification to include such parties and give full effect to the original intent, provided the omitted parties were expressly before the Court and their arguments were considered.
On this section: Prohibition of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
-
Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U. P. (now Known As U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board) vs Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman at Rama Janma Bhumi Represented by Next Friend Deoki Nandan Agarwal Is No More and in His Place Triloki Nath Pandey S/o Askrut Pandey
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a disputed land carries profound religious and cultural significance for multiple communities with legitimate historical claims, and evidence does not conclusively establish exclusive ownership, the Supreme Court may invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to partition and allocate the property in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of all communities to profess and practice their respective religions, build their places of worship, and maintain their cultural heritage. Such allocation should aim at achieving substantial justice, promoting communal harmony, and providing equitable remedies including both land allocation and symbolic compensation for any wrongful deprivation.
On this section: Criminal liability for communal violence and damage to religious structures (contextual reference)
-
Umar Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal antecedents of an accused are a relevant consideration in bail matters but are not an absolute bar to granting anticipatory bail. Where co-accused persons have been granted bail and the core attribution of criminal conduct is disputed to be a matter of trial, bail may be granted with appropriate conditions ensuring trial participation and court appearance, provided the court is satisfied that the case has factual and legal merit for such grant.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion; cited in FIR registration
-
Arun Pathak vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail primarily on the ground of apprehension of imminent arrest and custodial interrogation, and the State, through its counsel, explicitly informs the Supreme Court that it does not require custodial interrogation of the petitioner and that statutory notice under Section 41A CrPC has been served, the Special Leave Petition becomes infructuous and stands disposed of without adjudication on the substantive merits of bail, as the fundamental cause for the petition—the threat of arrest—ceases to exist.
On this section: Allegations of promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion against the petitioner
-
Shilpa Raj Kundra vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Casual or non-malicious remarks made by public figures in interviews, lacking specific intent to promote enmity between distinct groups or to humiliate based on caste identity, and made years prior to FIR registration without explanation for delay, do not constitute criminal offences under Section 153A IPC or Section 3(1)(r)(u) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The essential ingredients of these offences—mens rea, intent to promote enmity or humiliate based on caste, and government sanction—must be strictly established. Extraordinary delay in FIR registration raises grave doubts about truthfulness of allegations and constitutes abuse of process of law.
On this section: Promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. Court held that mere offending of one community without incitement to violence does not satisfy requirements; mens rea and intent to promote enmity between distinct groups is essential.
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Decided under Indian Penal Code 153A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Promoting enmity between different groups - dropped by Magistrate during issuance of process
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 196
What have the courts held on Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (25 Mar 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 153A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 153A (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9605). The mens rea / read-as-a-whole holding carries to BNS 196. Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
Is Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 196 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 Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 196 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 196, section 196 BNS, section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 196 2 in hindi and bns 196 1. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (25 Mar 2021).
What should I read with Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 196, 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.