Maintaining public peace and order is crucial for the functioning of any civilized society. The term “public tranquillity” refers to the state of general peace and order in a community or nation. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), continues the tradition of criminalizing group offences that threaten this peace. Offences against public tranquillity involve unlawful assemblies, rioting, affray, and related acts which endanger public safety or provoke public disorder.
Concept of Public Tranquility
Public tranquillity means peace and order among members of the public in a locality. The law views certain group behaviours—especially those that involve force or violence—as capable of disturbing this order and hence categorizes them as offences. These laws are preventive as well as punitive, aiming to suppress such disorders before they escalate into large-scale violence.
Legislative Framework under BNS, 2023
The provisions dealing with offences against public tranquility are now outlined in Chapter XI (Sections 189 to 197) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Previously, these offences were covered under Chapter VIII (Sections 141 to 160) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Unlawful Assembly (Section 189)
An assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if their common objective is any of the following:
(a) To use or threaten criminal force to overpower the Central or State Government, Parliament, State Legislature, or any public servant in the lawful discharge of duties.
(b) To obstruct the execution of any law or legal process.
(c) To commit offences like mischief, criminal trespass, or any other crime.
(d) To forcibly take possession of property, deprive someone of lawful use of rights (like water or pathways), or enforce a supposed right using force.
(e) To compel someone by force to do something they aren’t legally bound to do, or to stop them from doing something they are legally entitled to do.
Explanation in this section: Even if an assembly starts lawfully, it can become unlawful later depending on the intent and conduct of its members.
Being a Member of an Unlawful Assembly: Anyone who knowingly joins or stays in such an assembly is considered a member and can be punished with up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Disobeying Dispersal Orders: If someone continues in an unlawful assembly after being lawfully ordered to disperse, they may face up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Members Carrying Deadly Weapons: If a person in an unlawful assembly carries a deadly weapon or anything that can cause death, they can be punished with up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Disruptive Assemblies Without Common Object: If someone joins an assembly of 5 or more persons likely to disturb public peace after being told to disperse, they may be punished with up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
If the assembly is already unlawful under sub-section (1), then stricter penalties under sub-section (3) will apply.
Hiring Others to Join Unlawful Assemblies: Anyone who hires, engages, or encourages someone to join an unlawful assembly is punished as if they were a member and responsible for any offence committed by the hired person.
Sheltering Unlawful Assembly Participants: If someone knowingly shelters people who are hired or about to be hired to join such assemblies, they may be punished with up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Being Hired to Participate: Anyone who is hired, or tries to be hired, to take part in any of the unlawful acts listed above may face up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Going Armed After Being Hired: If a hired person goes armed or offers to go armed with a deadly weapon to participate in such acts, they may be punished with up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Liability of Unlawful Assembly Members for Common Object Offences (Section 190)
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly while pursuing the common object for which the assembly was formed, then every individual who is a member of that assembly at the time the offence is committed shall also be held guilty of that offence. This rule applies even if a particular member did not personally take part in the commission of the act, as long as the offence was either a direct outcome of the common object or was one that the members knew was likely to be committed in pursuit of that object.
The liability is collective, based on shared intent and participation in the assembly with knowledge of its unlawful aims.
Rioting (Section 191)
What is Rioting?
Rioting occurs when force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly—or by any member of it—while pursuing the group’s common goal. Even if only one person uses violence, all members of that unlawful assembly are considered to have committed the offence of rioting.
Punishment for Rioting:
Anyone found guilty of rioting can be punished with imprisonment for up to two years, or with a fine, or with both.
Rioting with Deadly Weapons:
If a person commits rioting while carrying a deadly weapon or anything that could be used to cause death, the punishment becomes more severe. In such cases, the person can be imprisoned for up to five years, or fined, or both.
Provoking to Cause Riot – Whether Riot is Committed or Not (Section 192)
Whoever intentionally or recklessly does something illegal to provoke another person, knowing that such provocation is likely to lead to rioting, shall be punished as follows:
- If a riot actually takes place as a result of the provocation: Punishment may extend to 1 year of imprisonment, or fine, or both.
- If no riot occurs despite the provocation: Punishment may extend to 6 months of imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Liability of Owner, Occupier, etc., of Land on which an Unlawful Assembly or Riot Takes Place (Section 193)
1. Responsibility of Landowners or Occupiers
- If an unlawful assembly or riot takes place on someone’s land, the owner, occupier, or anyone claiming an interest in the land can be fined up to ₹1,000 if:
- They or their agent/manager knew about the unlawful act, or had reason to believe it was likely to happen, and
- Failed to inform the nearest police station at the earliest opportunity, and
- Did not use all lawful means to stop or prevent it, or failed to help disperse it once it began.
2. When the Riot Happens for Their Benefit
If the riot happens for the benefit or on behalf of a person who owns or has interest in the land—or in the subject of the dispute that led to the riot—or who gains from it, that person can also be fined, if:
- They or their agent/manager had reason to believe a riot or unlawful assembly might occur, and
- They did not take lawful steps to prevent or stop it.
3. Liability of Agent or Manager
If a riot takes place for the benefit of the landowner or interested person, then the agent or manager of that person can also be fined, if:
- They had reason to believe the riot or unlawful assembly was likely to happen, and
- They did not use all legal means to prevent or suppress it.
Affray (Section 194)
What is Affray?
When two or more people fight in a public place and cause a disturbance to public peace, it is called an affray.
Punishment for Affray:
Anyone who commits an affray can be punished with up to 1 month in jail, or a fine up to ₹1,000, or both.
Assaulting or Obstructing Public Servant While Suppressing Riot, etc. (Section 195)
Section 195 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 penalizes individuals who assault, obstruct, or use criminal force against a public servant engaged in maintaining public order during riots, unlawful assemblies, or affrays.
This provision applies when a person physically assaults, obstructs, or uses criminal force on a public servant who is lawfully performing their duty to:
- Disperse an unlawful assembly,
- Suppress a riot, or
- Stop an affray (public fight).
Punishment:
- Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term up to 3 years,
- A fine not less than ₹25,000, or
- Both imprisonment and fine.
This sub-section ensures that public servants are protected from direct physical interference or harm while performing sensitive law and order duties.
Sub-section (2): Threats or Attempts
This provision covers attempts or threats to assault or obstruct a public servant engaged in the above duties, even if no physical assault actually occurs.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 1 year,
- Or fine,
- Or both.
This aims to deter not just actual violence but also intimidation or attempts to interfere with the actions of law enforcement officers working to control public disorder.
Promoting Enmity Between Groups and Acts Prejudicial to Harmony (Section 196)
Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with actions that create or encourage hatred, disharmony, or fear among different communities based on religion, race, caste, language, or region. The law aims to protect public peace and promote unity in society.
Promoting Hatred or Enmity
If a person uses spoken or written words, signs, visuals, or even electronic communication to spread hatred, ill-will, or disharmony among different religious, racial, linguistic, regional, or caste groups, they are committing an offence under this section. This also includes making attempts to do so.
Acts Harmful to Public Harmony
Any act—other than speech—that harms or is likely to harm peace and harmony between different communities, and which may disturb public tranquility, is also punishable. This could include gestures, online content, or public behaviour that incites group tensions.
Training for Violence Against Communities
If someone organises or participates in any activity like a drill, march, or training session meant to use or teach the use of criminal force or violence against a specific group, it is an offence—especially if it causes fear or insecurity among that group.
General Punishment
Anyone found guilty under any of the above acts can be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
Stricter Punishment for Offences at Religious Places
If the offence is committed in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the punishment is more serious—up to 5 years in prison, along with a fine. This ensures respect for religious sanctity and avoids communal tension.
Imputations and Assertions Prejudicial to National Integration (Section 197)
Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes speech or expressions that threaten national integration, unity, and security by targeting specific communities or spreading harmful narratives.
Key Offences Under This Section:
- Questioning Loyalty of Communities: If anyone states or publishes that a particular religious, racial, regional, or language-based group cannot be loyal to the Indian Constitution or cannot uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, it is punishable.
- Denying Citizenship Rights: It is an offence to advocate or promote that members of a certain group should be denied their rights as citizens of India based on their identity.
- Spreading Hatred Between Groups: Any appeal, statement, or counsel that creates or is likely to create hatred, disharmony, or enmity between different groups is punishable under this section.
- False Information Affecting National Security: Publishing or spreading false or misleading content that puts at risk India’s sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security is also covered.
Punishment:
General Offence: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
If done in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
This section aims to preserve national unity by preventing divisive and harmful speech that targets communities or promotes disloyalty to the Constitution based on identity.
Important Case Laws
[1] Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)
In Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, earlier convicted under Sections 302/149 and 147 IPC, due to inconsistent witness statements, delay in FIR submission, and lack of proof of a common object. The Court held that mere presence at the scene did not establish guilt. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding provisions are: Section 103 for punishment for murder (formerly Section 302 IPC), Section 190 for unlawful assembly liability (formerly Section 149 IPC), and Section 191 for rioting (formerly Section 147 IPC).
[2] Sheikh Wajih Uddin v. State (1962)
In Sheikh Wajih Uddin v. State (1962), the Allahabad High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 153-A IPC (Section 196 BNS), which penalizes acts promoting enmity between different classes. The Court rejected the argument that the provision violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, holding that it imposes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) in the interest of public order. Emphasizing the need for national unity and harmony, the Court found the section precise and not overly broad.
The matter was remanded to the trial court at Kanpur for disposal on merits, as only the question of vires had been addressed by the High Court.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, retains the foundational provisions of the Indian Penal Code concerning offences against public tranquillity but attempts to bring in modern language and digital-age compatibility. These offences play a key role in preventing mob violence, riots, and other forms of group-based disturbance to public peace.
While these laws are essential for a functioning democracy, they must be enforced with care and judicial scrutiny to ensure that they do not become tools for oppression. The rule of law must prevail, not only to punish disorder but also to preserve the constitutional balance between liberty and order.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860
[3] Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1831
[4] Sheikh Wajih Uddin v. State AIR 1963 ALL 335