Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India
Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India. Whoever wages war against the [Government of India], or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life] [and shall also be liable to fine]. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever wages war against the [Government of India], or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life] [and shall also be liable to fine].
[Illustration.]
A joins an insurrection against the [Government of India]. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
* * * *
Section 121, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 147 Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against Government of India Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 5
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.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In review petitions arising from cases where death penalty has been awarded, a limited oral hearing of a maximum of thirty minutes per side in open Court is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution as a just, fair and reasonable procedure, as a distinct exception to the general rule established in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court. This exception is justified because: (1) death penalty is irreversible and results in deprivation of the most fundamental right to life; (2) different judicially trained minds applying the 'rarest of rare' sentencing doctrine can reach diametrically opposite conclusions on identical facts; and (3) even a remote chance of deviating from an original decision in a death sentence case justifies oral hearing as part of a 'reasonable procedure' under Article 21. All cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges under Supreme Court Rules 2013 Order VI Rule 3.
On this section: Offences for which death is alternative punishment
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.
-
… We now turn to the last ground regarding possibility of retribution and rehabilitation of the review petitioner. On this issue, the response of the State in its Written Submissions is as follows: - "3. The petitioner, admittedly a Pakistani national, has been convicted inter-alia under Section 121,302,120B,121A,181 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, for waging war against the Government of India and committing murder in pursuance thereof. This Hon'ble Court has taken the view that the cases of such nature, …
-
… that such acts will result in breakdown of public order and the Accused have reported to have acquired and collected explosive substances and other necessary arms and ammunitions and conspired to wage war against the Union Government of India. 24. The information received by me constitutes cognizable offence U/s 120(b), 121, 121(A),1 122, 124(A), 153(a) and (b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Sections 25, 26 and 28 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967." 7. The investigation into the crime was conducted by the team …
-
… that such acts will result in breakdown of public order and the Accused have reported to have acquired and collected explosive substances and other necessary arms and ammunitions and conspired to wage war against the Union Government of India. 24. The information received by me constitutes cognizable offence U/s 120(b), 121, 121(A),1 122, 124(A), 153(a) and (b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Sections 25, 26 and 28 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967." 7. The investigation into the crime was conducted by the team …
Questions about Section 121
What have the courts held on Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code?
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India (02 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offences for which death is alternative punishment.
How do I find court cases under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 121, section 121 IPC, section 121 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India (02 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 147 (Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against Government of India), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called treason or waging war, and cited as IPC 121, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.