Statements conducing to public mischief
Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with statements conducing to public mischief. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means--- (a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means---
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) 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.
Exception.---It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, false information, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, false information, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.
Section 353, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 505 Statements conducing public mischief Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
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.
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 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| False statement, rumour, etc., circulated with intent to cause mutiny or offence against the public peace. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| False statement, rumour, etc., with intent to create enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| False statement, rumour, etc., made in place of worship, etc., with intent to create enmity, hatred or ill-will. | Imprisonment for 5 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-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.
-
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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 505 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9309). The public-mischief mens rea holding carries to BNS 353.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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: Statements conducing to public mischief - Applied to charges against leaders who made inflammatory speeches.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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: Statements conducing to public mischief - applied to charges against the accused leaders for their speeches and statements
-
Ranbir Yadav vs U. O. I
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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: Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes - applicable to social media hate campaigns and hostile messages
-
Karma Dorjee vs U. O. I
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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: Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. Used to address hate speech and hostile messages on social media against north-eastern communities.
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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: Section 505(2) specifically addresses making statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of society; punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both
-
Arun Pathak vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, 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 making statements with intent to cause, or knowing it is likely to cause, public alarm
-
Ajay Walia vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 505, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Fair criticism of public figures and their conduct in matters of public interest, made in good faith and without defamatory intent, is protected under the exceptions to defamation law (Sections 499 IPC) and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution). An FIR for defamation cannot be validly registered when the complainant is not the defamed person. Mere dissatisfaction or disagreement with a statement does not constitute promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different classes under Section 505(2) IPC. When allegations in an FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute the necessary ingredients of an offence, the FIR and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. The Court held that the post did not create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The Court found that mere dissatisfaction or disagreement with a statement cannot be elevated to the level of promoting such 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.
Questions about Section 353
What have the courts held on Section 353 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 505, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 505 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9309). The public-mischief mens rea holding carries to BNS 353. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2024.
Is Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-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 353 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 353, section 353 BNS, section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 353(2) and bns 353(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 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 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 505 (Statements conducing public mischief), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 353, 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.