IPC Section 228 and BNS Section 267: Intentional Insult or Interruption During Judicial Proceedings
A person who deliberately insults or interrupts a public servant while that official is sitting in a judicial proceeding may commit a criminal offence. The earlier rule was Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the corresponding current rule is Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Current punishment under BNS Section 267: Simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine up to Rs. 5,000, or both.
Classification: Non-cognizable and bailable, with a special court procedure where the conduct occurs in the court's view or presence.
1. BNS Section 267: Current legal provision
Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is titled Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding. It punishes a person who intentionally offers an insult or causes an interruption to a public servant while the public servant is sitting at any stage of a judicial proceeding.
The statutory maximum is six months of simple imprisonment, a fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000, or both. The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. Application to a particular incident depends on the date of the conduct and the relevant transitional and saving provisions.
2. IPC Section 228: Earlier law
Under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, intentionally insulting or interrupting a public servant while sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding was punishable by simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both.
The core prohibited conduct has been carried forward into BNS Section 267. The principal express change in the penalty is the higher maximum fine of Rs. 5,000 under the BNS. The historical IPC provision remains relevant to older incidents and proceedings governed by applicable saving rules.
3. Essential ingredients of the offence
- A public servant acting in a judicial proceeding: The person insulted or interrupted must be a public servant sitting at a stage of a judicial proceeding.
- Insult or interruption: There must be conduct constituting an insult directed at the official or an interruption of the proceeding.
- Intentional conduct: The act must be intentional; mere inadvertence or accidental disturbance is not enough by itself.
- Connection with the proceeding: The relevant conduct must occur while the public servant is sitting in the judicial proceeding, rather than in an unrelated private setting.
The facts, surrounding circumstances and evidence determine whether these ingredients are proved. The law does not make every disagreement with a judicial officer a criminal insult.
4. Punishment, bail and trial procedure
| Legal issue | IPC Section 228 (earlier) | BNS Section 267 (current) |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum imprisonment | Six months, simple imprisonment | Six months, simple imprisonment |
| Maximum fine | Rs. 1,000 | Rs. 5,000 |
| Alternative sentence | Imprisonment, fine, or both | Imprisonment, fine, or both |
| Cognizability | Non-cognizable | Non-cognizable |
| Bail | Bailable | Bailable |
Which court deals with the offence?
The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that the offence is triable by the court in which it is committed, subject to the special provisions of Chapter XXVIII; if not committed in a court, it is triable by any Magistrate.
BNSS Section 384 provides a summary procedure for specified offences committed in the view or presence of a court. Where the court considers that the case should not be disposed of through that procedure, BNSS Section 385 addresses forwarding the matter to a Magistrate with jurisdiction. These procedural powers and safeguards are separate from the maximum substantive penalty in BNS Section 267.
Meaning of non-cognizable and bailable
Non-cognizable means the police do not have the ordinary power to arrest without a warrant solely on that classification. Bailable means bail is available as of right subject to the applicable statutory procedure. Other alleged offences, if any, must be assessed separately.
5. Practical illustrations
- Deliberate disruption: A spectator repeatedly shouts abuse at a presiding judicial officer during a hearing with the purpose of stopping the proceeding. The facts may attract BNS Section 267.
- Intentional interruption: A person deliberately interrupts the recording of evidence despite directions to stop. Liability depends on proof of the statutory ingredients.
- Accidental disturbance: A phone unexpectedly rings in a courtroom and is immediately silenced. Without intentional insult or interruption, the facts ordinarily do not establish this particular offence.
- Respectful legal objection: A lawyer raises an objection through lawful courtroom procedure. An objection alone is not an intentional insult or unlawful interruption.
6. Distinction from contempt of court
BNS Section 267 creates a specific statutory offence. Contempt of court is governed by separate constitutional and statutory principles, including the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The existence of one legal framework does not mean that every disruptive incident automatically satisfies the requirements of the other. The nature of the act, forum, applicable procedure and judicial findings matter.
7. Frequently asked questions
What is IPC Section 228?
It was the Indian Penal Code provision punishing an intentional insult or interruption to a public servant while sitting in a judicial proceeding. Its maximum penalty was six months of simple imprisonment, a fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both.
Which BNS section corresponds to IPC Section 228?
Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to IPC Section 228 and applies under the new criminal law framework from 1 July 2024.
What is the punishment under BNS Section 267?
Simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine up to Rs. 5,000, or both.
Is BNS Section 267 cognizable and bailable?
It is non-cognizable and bailable under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Does disagreement with a judge automatically amount to this offence?
No. The prosecution must establish an intentional insult or interruption while a public servant was sitting at a stage of a judicial proceeding. Respectful legal submissions or lawful criticism do not automatically satisfy those elements.
Which court can try the offence?
The court in which the offence occurs may deal with it subject to the special procedure in Chapter XXVIII of the BNSS; otherwise it is triable by any Magistrate, as indicated in the BNSS First Schedule.
8. Official legal sources
- National Crime Records Bureau: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - section-wise text
- NCRB: First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- NCRB: BNSS provisions, including Sections 384 and 385
- Government of India: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (PDF)
- India Code: Official central legislation portal
Legal information notice: This article explains the statutory framework for general reference. Legal consequences in an individual case depend on the relevant date, facts, court orders, applicable amendments and procedural law.