Section 153A IPC vs Section 196 BNS — Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups

In India, Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The offence and its punishments are carried over; the main textual change is that Section 196(1)(a) now expressly covers words or representations "through electronic communication".

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 153A and 153B IPC the same way (cognizable, non-bailable, Magistrate of the first class, after tracing its "Ditto" entries). Neither the CrPC nor the BNSS lists these offences as compoundable.

What changed

• Minor edit — Section 196(1)(a): "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise" becomes "... or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise". The IPC's "or otherwise" was already open-ended. No judgment construing the added words was read for this page, so the change is labelled a minor edit rather than an expansion.
• Minor edit — punctuation and spelling: the clauses of Section 196(1) are joined by "; or" where the IPC used ", or" and "[or]"; "organizes" in clause (c) becomes "organises".
• Minor edit — Section 196(2): the words "Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—", which opened Section 153A(2) as a sub-heading in the India Code text, are dropped. The operative words are unchanged.
• Identical — punishments: up to three years, or fine, or both (196(1)); up to five years and fine (196(2)).
• Identical — sanction: Section 217(1)(a) BNSS, like Section 196(1)(a) CrPC, bars cognizance without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government.
• Neighbour, expanded — Section 197 (IPC 153B): adds "or through electronic communication", and a new clause (1)(d): "makes or publishes false or misleading information, jeopardising the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India". The punishments are unchanged.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 153A(1)(a) IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities,

Extract, Section 196(1)(a) and (2) BNS:

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) 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.

How it works — the ingredients

Section 196(1) has three alternative limbs, each punished the same way.

1. Clause (a) — promoting enmity: by words, signs, visible representations, electronic communication or otherwise, the accused promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will. The ground may be religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community "or any other ground whatsoever". The feelings must be between different religious, racial, language or regional groups, castes or communities.
2. Clause (b) — acts prejudicial to harmony: any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between such groups "and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity".
3. Clause (c) — drills against a group: organising or taking part in an exercise, movement or drill intended to train participants to use criminal force or violence against a group, where the activity "causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity" among its members.

Sub-section (2) aggravates any of these when committed in a place of worship or a religious assembly.

Elements added by the Supreme Court's reading of Section 153A (see the judgments below): intention (mens rea) must be shown; at least two groups must be involved; the words must be read as a whole; and their effect is judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded people. Section 196 repeats the words those judgments construed, so on a reading of the text they remain relevant.

Neighbouring provisions:

• Section 197 BNS (formerly 153B IPC) — imputations that a class cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, assertions that a class should be denied citizens' rights, and now false or misleading information jeopardising India's sovereignty, unity, integrity or security.
• Section 353 BNS (formerly 505 IPC) — statements conducing to public mischief.
• Section 299 BNS (formerly 295A IPC) — deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

What this means in practice

For the person making the complaint

• Section 196 is cognizable, but Section 173(3) BNSS applies to offences punishable with three years or more and less than seven. The officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, hold a preliminary inquiry of up to fourteen days before proceeding. If the officer declines, Section 173(4) lets the complainant send the substance of the information to the Superintendent of Police, and then apply to the Magistrate.
• Give the exact words, post or video, where and when it was published, and which groups it targets. Imran Pratapgadhi holds that the officer must read or hear the words themselves to decide whether an offence is made out.

For the investigating officer

• Judge the words as a whole and by the standard of reasonable people (Javed Ahmad Hajam; Imran Pratapgadhi).
• Before the charge sheet can lead to cognizance, the prosecution needs the previous sanction of the Central or State Government under Section 217(1) BNSS. The Government may first order a preliminary investigation by an officer not below the rank of Inspector (Section 217(4)).

For the accused and defence advocate

• The offence is non-bailable, so bail is at the court's discretion. It is not compoundable.
• A petition to quash can be tested against the ingredients above: whether any group is targeted, whether two groups are involved, and whether intent is shown. Imran Pratapgadhi (para 42(vii)) states there is no absolute rule against quashing at the nascent stage of investigation.
• Section 479(1) BNSS (release after one-half of the maximum, or one-third for a first-time offender) can apply, as the offence does not carry death or life imprisonment.

Other consequences: Section 98 BNSS (formerly Section 95 CrPC) lets the State Government forfeit a newspaper, book or document containing matter punishable under Section 196 or 197. Section 127 BNSS (formerly Section 108 CrPC) lets an Executive Magistrate require security for good behaviour from a person disseminating such matter.

Judgments that still matter

Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1997] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 327 (1997 INSC 598) — 6 August 1997. Dr. A. S. Anand and K. T. Thomas JJ. set aside convictions under Sections 124A, 153A and 505(2) IPC. The Court held that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of Section 153A. Because the common feature of Sections 153A and 505(2) is promotion of enmity "between different" groups, at least two groups or communities must be involved; inciting one community's feelings without reference to another does not attract either section. The report shows no paragraph numbers.

Manzar Sayeed Khan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Supreme Court, 5 April 2007. K. G. Balakrishnan C.J., Lokeshwar Singh Panta and D. K. Jain JJ. directed that the author of a book on Shivaji not be proceeded against under Sections 153, 153A and 34 IPC (para 21). The Court held that "The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people" (para 16). The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence, and the matter must be read as a whole, not by isolated passages (para 16). Effect is judged by the standard of "reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men" (para 17).

Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024] 3 S.C.R. 317 (2024 INSC 187) — 7 March 2024. Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ. quashed an FIR under Section 153A IPC against a professor over WhatsApp status messages criticising the abrogation of Article 370 (paras 9, 15). The Court held: "The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers." Hatred developed by a few individuals is not enough (para 11). Clause (b) was not attracted either (para 14).

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 (2025 INSC 410) — 28 March 2025. The same Bench quashed an FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) BNS (para 3) against a Member of the Rajya Sabha over a poem in a video posted on social media (para 44). The poem did not refer to any religion, caste or language and did not promote enmity between groups (paras 12, 14). The Court held that Section 173(3) BNSS "makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC". It permits a preliminary inquiry into offences punishable with three to seven years even where the information discloses a cognizable offence (para 42(i)). Where the offence alleged is one covered by a law under Article 19(2) and Section 173(3) applies, it is "always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry" (para 42(v)). Effect is judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals (para 42(vi)).

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed". On a reading of that provision, speech or conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 153A IPC. Procedure for matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act. On a reading of that Article, the new clause (d) of Section 197(1) BNS cannot reach earlier conduct. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 153A IPC? Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 153A IPC from 1 July 2024. It punishes promoting enmity between religious, racial, language or regional groups, castes or communities, acts prejudicial to harmony between them, and organising drills to use violence against them. Section 196(1)(a) now expressly names words or representations 'through electronic communication'.

What is the punishment under Section 196 BNS? Imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, under Section 196(1). If the offence is committed in a place of worship or in an assembly engaged in religious worship or ceremonies, Section 196(2) provides imprisonment up to five years and fine. Both punishments are the same as in Section 153A(1) and (2) IPC.

Is Section 196 BNS bailable? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists Section 196(1) and 196(2) as cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 153A IPC the same way. The offence is not compoundable under Section 359 BNSS.

Does a Section 196 BNS case need government sanction? Yes. Under Section 217(1)(a) BNSS, no court may take cognizance of an offence under Section 196 BNS without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. Section 196(1)(a) CrPC imposed the same requirement for Section 153A IPC. For Section 197 BNS, Section 217(2) BNSS also allows sanction by the District Magistrate.

Must the police register an FIR at once for a hate-speech complaint? Not always. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410), the Supreme Court held that Section 173(3) BNSS lets the officer in charge, with a superior officer's permission, hold a preliminary inquiry into offences punishable with three to seven years, such as Section 196 BNS. It said that where the offence alleged falls within the Article 19(2) restrictions on speech and Section 173(3) applies, it is always appropriate to conduct that inquiry, and that the words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals.

Is intention necessary for the offence under Section 196 BNS? Yes, on the Supreme Court's reading of the corresponding Section 153A IPC. In Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 5 April 2007), the Court held that the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence. In Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 187), it held that the test is the general impact of the words on reasonable people, not on individuals with weak minds.

What is the difference between Section 196 and Section 197 BNS? Section 196 BNS (formerly 153A IPC) punishes promoting enmity or disharmony between groups. Section 197 BNS (formerly 153B IPC) punishes imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration, such as claiming a class cannot bear true allegiance to the Constitution. Section 197(1)(d) is new: it adds making or publishing false or misleading information jeopardising the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India.

Which law applies to a speech made before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS lets proceedings for an offence under the IPC be instituted or continued as if the Code had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text speech before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 153A IPC. The punishment is the same under both sections. On a reading of Article 20(1), the new Section 197(1)(d) cannot apply to conduct before that date, because the IPC had no such offence.

Related

• Hate speech and promoting enmity — BNS 196 vs IPC 153A
• Fake news and false statements — BNS 353 and 197 vs IPC 505
• Hurting religious feelings — BNS 298-302 vs IPC 295-298
• Sedition abolished — what replaced it
• Police refuse to register an FIR — remedies
• IPC to BNS master table
• Section 505 IPC vs Section 353 BNS — Statements Conducing to Public Mischief
• Section 153B IPC vs Section 197 BNS — Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration
• Sections 95–96 CrPC vs Sections 98–99 BNSS — Forfeiture of Publications and Challenge in the High Court
• Sections 106–110 CrPC vs Sections 125–129 BNSS — Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 196, 197 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 153A and 153B with the amendment footnotes (Act 35 of 1969; Act 31 of 1972).
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 98, 125, 127, 173, 217, 359, 479 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 196 and 197 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 95, 106, 108 and 196, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 153A and 153B IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (S_1997_3_327_336_EN.md); Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007_4_907_917_EN.md); Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024_3_317_328_EN.md); Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025_3_1309_1349_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.