IPC Section 179 and BNS Section 214: Refusing to Answer a Public Servant
Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addressed refusal to answer a public servant who was legally authorised to question a person. For offences governed by the new criminal law from 1 July 2024, the corresponding provision is Section 214 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The offence concerns a refusal to answer a question where the person is legally bound to state the truth and the question is asked within the public servant's lawful authority.
Current law: Section 214 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 214 falls in Chapter XIII of the BNS, concerning contempts of the lawful authority of public servants. In substance, it punishes a person who, while legally bound to state the truth on a subject, refuses to answer a question concerning that subject asked by a public servant exercising lawful powers. The statutory maximum punishment is simple imprisonment for six months, or a fine of Rs. 5,000, or both.
The official statutory wording can be checked in the NCRB BNS chapter text and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (official Act PDF).
Earlier law: IPC Section 179
IPC Section 179, titled Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question, provided that a person legally bound to state the truth to a public servant who refused to answer a question relating to that subject, asked in exercise of the servant's legal powers, could be punished with simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both. The wording and basic ingredients were substantially carried into BNS Section 214, while the maximum fine increased to Rs. 5,000.
The date of the alleged conduct matters. The repeal and savings framework must be considered for conduct occurring before 1 July 2024; the commencement of the BNS does not automatically rewrite the substantive law applicable to earlier acts.
Essential ingredients of the offence
- A legal obligation to state the truth: the person must be legally bound to provide truthful answers on the relevant subject; a general request for information is not, by itself, enough.
- A legally empowered public servant: the question must come from a public servant acting within the powers conferred by law.
- A question within the authorised subject: the question must relate to the subject on which the person is legally required to speak truthfully.
- Refusal to answer: there must be a refusal to answer the question in circumstances in which the law requires an answer. Whether a refusal is punishable depends on the legal duty and applicable constitutional or statutory protections.
Meaning of key legal expressions
Public servant
The expression includes persons falling within the applicable statutory definition of a public servant. Not every employee or person requesting information is automatically authorised to demand an answer under Section 214.
Legally bound to state the truth
This refers to an obligation created by law, not merely a moral expectation. The relevant statute, summons, inquiry or proceeding must be examined to determine the duty.
In exercise of legal powers
The authority must be exercising a power legally available to that authority. A question unrelated to the authorised inquiry or asked without legal competence may not satisfy the provision.
Right against self-incrimination and other safeguards
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. Other protections may arise under the rules governing examination of persons by police and under particular statutes. Section 214 must be applied consistently with those protections; it does not create an unrestricted power to compel every answer.
The Supreme Court's decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani (1978) is an important authority on the privilege against self-incrimination in police questioning. The precise protection available depends on the nature of the question, the person's position in the proceedings, and the governing law. A person receiving a lawful summons should seek legal advice before deciding whether to decline particular questions.
Practical illustrations
Example 1: A witness lawfully examined by a competent authority is required to answer a relevant, non-privileged question truthfully. A deliberate refusal may attract Section 214 if all statutory ingredients are established.
Example 2: An official with no legal authority to question a person on a particular subject demands an answer. Mere refusal does not establish Section 214 because the required legal power and duty may be absent.
Example 3: A question would compel an accused person to provide a self-incriminating response protected by Article 20(3). The statutory offence cannot be considered without examining the constitutional safeguard.
Punishment, bail and trial
| Issue | Position under BNS Section 214 |
|---|---|
| Maximum imprisonment | Simple imprisonment up to six months |
| Maximum fine | Rs. 5,000 |
| Other sentencing option | Both imprisonment and fine |
| Cognizability | Non-cognizable |
| Bail | Bailable |
| Trial forum | The court in which the offence is committed, subject to Chapter XXVIII of the BNSS; otherwise any Magistrate |
Procedural provisions governing offences affecting the lawful authority of public servants, including the requirement of an appropriate written complaint for specified offences, may apply. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) should be consulted for the current procedural rules and First Schedule.
Difference from related offences
Refusing to answer a legally authorised question under BNS Section 214 is different from refusing to take an oath or affirmation (former IPC Section 178; BNS Section 213) and refusing to sign a statement (former IPC Section 180; BNS Section 215). The legal duties and prohibited conduct are distinct.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current equivalent of IPC Section 179?
Section 214 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
What is the punishment under BNS Section 214?
Simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to Rs. 5,000, or both.
Is BNS Section 214 bailable?
Yes. The offence is bailable and non-cognizable under the BNSS First Schedule.
Can a public servant demand answers to any question?
No. The public servant must have legal authority, the question must be within the authorised subject, and constitutional and statutory protections remain applicable.
Does silence automatically amount to an offence?
No. A legally enforceable duty to answer and all other elements of the offence must be established. The context and applicable protections matter.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Act 45 of 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Act 46 of 2023
- National Crime Records Bureau - BNS provisions
- India Code - central legislation database
This article is general legal information, not advice on a particular investigation or proceeding. Statutory amendments, savings provisions and the facts of the case may affect the outcome.