Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 299, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 295A Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 98
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 127
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 98 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for same
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 127 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating certain matters
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | 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.
-
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 295A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-27.pdf 2017-04-20 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-29). TP(Crl) 23/2016. Dipak Misra/Khanwilkar/Shantanagoudar. s.295A covers only aggravated insults with deliberate/malicious intention to outrage religious feelings (Ramji Lal Modi); an unwitting/careless insult is not enough. Magazine caption 'God of Big Deals' does not satisfy the ingredients; complaint quashed; co-accused gets parity. Do not remap crpc 482 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 295A (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9721). The deliberate-and-malicious ingredients test carries to BNS 299.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 295A, 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: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 295A, 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: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings - applied to the demolition and related acts
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 295A, 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 related to religion; provides punishment up to 3 years for speech, writings or signs deliberately and maliciously insulting religion or religious beliefs of any class; constitutional validity upheld in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620
-
Arun Pathak vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 295A, 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 deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
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.
-
… Pradeep Lohani,<br>Brief Holder. | Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Application has been filed by the applicant Mohd. Haroon Kureshi for anticipatory bail under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 196(1) and Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.115 of 2025, registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. 2 . As per the First Information Report dated 03.04.2025, a head of a cow was found by the police party lying near the barrage Jhula Pool, Dakpathar. …
-
… JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 19-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner is alleged to have spoken filthy words in the class room with intention to offend religion or religious beliefs due to which a feeling of hatred and communal tension may arise between two communities. 4. Learned counsel appearing …
-
… on 13.03.2025, exhorting the members of the non-Muslim community that they shall not maintain any co-operation with the Muslim community in Erattupetta, and that they should boycott the shops and other institutions run by the Muslim community. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act,2010 . 3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he had not committed any offence as alleged, and that the allegations against him are politically motivated. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and …
Questions about Section 299
What have the courts held on Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (20 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 295A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 295A (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9721). The deliberate-and-malicious ingredients test carries to BNS 299. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2023.
Is Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 299 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 299 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 299, section 299 BNS, section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 299 and 302 and bns 299 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (20 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 299, 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.