Obscene acts and songs
Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with obscene acts and songs. Whoever, to the annoyance of others,— (a) does any obscene act in any public place; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, to the annoyance of others,—
(a) does any obscene act in any public place; or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 296, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 294 Obscene acts and songs Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obscene acts and songs. | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, 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.
-
N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-2.pdf 2022-10-10 DATE VERIFIED. Nazeer/Pardiwala reportable. Crl A 1759/2022. Isolates IPC 294(b): mere abusive or defamatory words, without a lascivious tendency and annoyance of others, do not make out 294; FIR quashed. Map ipc 294 + BNS 296 successor (near-identical 0.9824). Do not pad ipc 341 or crpc 482.
On this section: Successor of IPC 294 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9824). The 294(b) ingredients holding carries to BNS 296.
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Obscene acts and songs. Applied in trial court conviction (later modified by High Court).
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Obscene acts and songs - applied for using abusive and filthy language
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Obscene act in public place; cited in original sexual harassment case
-
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an alleged offence pertains to obscene material in electronic form, the offence falls exclusively under the special provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Sections 67, 67A, and 67B), and not under the general provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The IT Act, being a special enactment with specific provisions for electronic records and containing an overriding effect clause (Section 81), prevails over the IPC. Therefore, an accused who has been discharged from prosecution under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot subsequently be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same conduct involving obscene material in electronic form. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws, particularly when both contain non-obstante clauses, mandates that the IT Act provisions apply to electronic records, and the protection and effect of Section 79 (intermediary protection) cannot be ignored or negated.
On this section: Cited as one of the offences in the original charge sheet; proceedings dropped against appellant
-
State of M. P vs Giriraj Dubey
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
High Courts are obligated to provide cogent and reasoned orders when declining to grant leave to appeal against acquittals under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the leave stage, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case or arguable points have been raised, not whether the acquittal judgment would ultimately be set aside. Cryptic or readymade observations that merely restate the trial court's findings without explanation constitute improper disposal that denies proper judicial scrutiny and are unsustainable. The requirement for reasoned orders is mandatory, reflecting constitutional mandate for judicial discipline and the rule that reasons are the heartbeat of every judicial conclusion.
On this section: Charge against Giriraj Dubey for alleged abusive language; specific section provides for offense of obscene acts or words in public
-
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. that witness depositions in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate is not a curable irregularity but a fatal defect that renders the evidence inadmissible and vitiates the entire trial. Additionally, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and denial of this right prejudices the accused and violates principles of natural justice. When an Investigating Officer fails to appear for cross-examination, the evidence collected by that officer remains unproved and cannot be relied upon for conviction.
On this section: Charge of obscene acts in public place; conviction set aside due to procedural defects
-
Tinopal vs Satish
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal revision petitions against acquittal orders, the appellate court cannot unsettle the acquittal unless it finds perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial court. Where the prosecution fails to prove essential elements of an offense (such as valid marriage ceremonies in a bigamy case) through credible evidence and witness testimony, and where the evidence consists primarily of hearsay and self-serving statements, the acquittal must be upheld. The presumption of innocence is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial court, and where two views are possible regarding guilt or innocence, the view favoring the accused must prevail.
On this section: Obscene acts and songs - The charge was considered but the court found insufficient evidence.
-
Miryala Phanindra vs State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific evidence of participation, possession of contraband, or role attribution by the investigating agency, does not constitute criminal liability under NDPS Act, Excise Act, Disaster Management Act, Epidemic Disease Act, or IPC. The investigating agency must specify the exact role played by each accused and provide concrete evidence (such as recovery of prohibited substance from the accused's possession or evidence of consumption) to justify prosecution. Absence of such specific evidence is fatal to the prosecution.
On this section: Obscene acts and songs; charged against accused in the rave party case
-
J.lalitha vs The Superintendent of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot direct the police to alter an FIR by adding additional sections of the Indian Penal Code without evidence of the commission of those offences. The police must gather evidence before filing an alteration report, and it is within the police's discretion to determine when and whether to file such a report based on the evidence collected during investigation.
On this section: Obscene acts and songs - originally charged in the FIR
-
Vijay @ Kuruvi Vijay vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused with extensive criminal antecedents and a history of serious offences cannot seek parity in bail or sentence suspension relief with a co-accused who has a cleaner criminal record. The court's discretion to grant or refuse suspension of sentence must be exercised considering the individual criminal history and antecedents of each accused, and the risk of re-offending if released.
On this section: Obscene acts and words - charge from which petitioner was acquitted
-
Abdul Kadhar vs The State Rep by Its
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a Criminal Revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence, the High Court cannot interfere with the trial court's discretionary sentencing merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment. The petitioner must produce material evidence demonstrating that the offence committed is heinous in nature. Without such evidence of heinous nature, the sentence imposed by the trial court exercising its discretionary power cannot be interfered with by the High Court.
On this section: Offence of using obscene words or gestures in public place; applied to the accused's use of abusive language during the incident
-
State Government vs velu and 2 others
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. When the evidence of interested witnesses (related to the injured person) is inconsistent regarding the place of occurrence, the weapons used, and the specific injuries caused by each accused, and when there is no independent corroborating evidence or independent eye witness, and when there is unexplained delay in registration of the First Information Report, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them. The cardinal principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be compromised by circumstantial evidence or interested witness testimony alone.
On this section: Offence of uttering obscene words in or near public place causing annoyance to others. Court found no evidence of utterance of obscene words by any accused.
-
State of Odisha vs Pramod Padhi and others
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the informant and all injured victims do not support the prosecution case, do not depose any incriminating material against the accused, and state that the matter has been amicably settled, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An FIR is corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence, and its contents must be proved through strong evidence adduced in court. In the absence of such evidence and when the complainant herself does not want to proceed with the case, the accused persons must be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof.
On this section: Obscene words in public place - Alleged use of obscene language causing annoyance
-
Ramesh Pradhan vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an FIR alleges abuse and assault causing bleeding injuries to the informant, the correct statutory classification is under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), not Section 373 IPC or Section 337 IPC. Section 337 IPC applies to overt acts endangering human life and limb, whereas the facts constitute assault simpliciter. The High Court has the revisional jurisdiction to correct erroneous cognizance orders by the lower court and modify them to reflect the correct statutory sections applicable to the facts alleged.
On this section: Retained in the modified cognizance order for obscene language/conduct
-
Zahoor Anwar @ Munna vs Hafiz Khan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 294, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to correct typographical errors in its own orders. When a court order contains a reference to a statutory provision that was not part of the original charges or proceedings, such erroneous reference can be deleted to ensure accuracy of the judicial record. The corrected order shall be read conjointly with the original order to maintain the continuity and validity of the judicial pronouncement.
On this section: Obscene language - one of the charges against the applicants in the original criminal complaint
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 296
What have the courts held on Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha (10 Oct 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 294, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 294 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9824). The 294(b) ingredients holding carries to BNS 296. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
Is Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 296 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 296 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 296, section 296 BNS, section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 296 b in hindi and bns 296 b section in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha (10 Oct 2022).
What should I read with Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 294 (Obscene acts and songs), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 296, 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.