Sections 228–228A IPC vs Sections 267, 72–73 BNS — Insult to a Court and Disclosure of a Sexual-Offence Victim's Identity

In India, from 1 July 2024 Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), raising the fine cap from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000. Section 228A IPC, the victim-identity bar, became Sections 72 and 73 BNS and now also protects victims of the new Section 69 offence.

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 228 IPC the same way (triable by "The Court in which the offence is committed subject to the provisions of Chapter XXVI") and both limbs of Section 228A IPC as cognizable, bailable (a "Ditto" traced to the Section 228 row) and triable by any Magistrate. The only classification change is the added words for Section 267: "or, if not committed, in a Court, any Magistrate". None of these offences is compoundable: they appear in neither table of Section 320 CrPC nor of Section 359 BNSS.

What changed

Section 228 IPC → Section 267 BNS

• Modified — fine: "fine which may extend to one thousand rupees" becomes "fine which may extend to five thousand rupees". Simple imprisonment up to six months is unchanged.
• Minor edit — punctuation: the BNS text inserts a comma after the opening word: "Whoever, intentionally offers any insult". The rest of the definition, including "sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding", is word for word the same.

Section 228A(1)–(2) IPC → Section 72 BNS

• Expanded — offences covered: "an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E" becomes "an offence under section 64 or section 65 or section 66 or section 67 or section 68 or section 69 or section 70 or section 71". Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 BNS carry the rape offences of Sections 376 to 376E IPC. Section 69 BNS — sexual intercourse "by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same", not amounting to rape — is new, so the identity bar reaches a category of victim that Section 228A never covered.
• Modified — clause (2)(c): "where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind" becomes "where the victim is dead or a child or of unsound mind". Section 2(3) BNS defines "child" as "any person below the age of eighteen years"; the IPC did not define "minor" for this clause.
• Minor edit: "next-of-kin" becomes "next of kin" (twice), and the Explanation's "recognised in this behalf by the Central or State Government" becomes "by the Central Government or the State Government".
• Identical in substance: the punishment (imprisonment of either description up to two years and liable to fine) and the police-investigation and victim-authorisation exceptions in clauses (a) and (b).

Section 228A(3) IPC → Section 73 BNS

• Minor edit — new section: the sub-section and its Explanation become a stand-alone section. "any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1)" becomes "any proceeding before a Court with respect to an offence referred to in section 72", and "such court" becomes "such Court". Punishment and the Explanation (High Court and Supreme Court judgments may be published) are unchanged.
• State amendment: the India Code IPC text prints an Arunachal Pradesh amendment (Act 3 of 2019) to the list in Section 228A(1); Section 72 BNS carries none.

Procedure (BNSS)

• Modified — summary punishment: Section 384(1) BNSS, which replaces Section 345(1) CrPC, lets a court punish an insult or interruption committed in its view or presence with a "fine not exceeding one thousand rupees"; Section 345(1) CrPC allowed "two hundred rupees". Section 385(1) BNSS, like Section 346(1) CrPC, still speaks of a court forwarding the case where "a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed".
• Minor edit — cognizance bar: Section 215(1)(b)(i) BNSS lists Section 267 where Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC listed Section 228 (see "What this means in practice").

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 228 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

... shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Extract, Section 267 BNS:

Whoever, intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Extract, Section 72(1) BNS:

(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 64 or section 65 or section 66 or section 67 or section 68 or section 69 or section 70 or section 71 is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

Extract, Section 73 BNS:

Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a Court with respect to an offence referred to in section 72 without the previous permission of such Court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

How it works

Section 267 BNS — insult or interruption in a judicial proceeding

1. Intention — the insult must be "intentionally" offered; the interruption must be "caused".
2. Target — "any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding".
3. Procedure when it happens in court — under Section 384(1) BNSS the court may detain the offender, take cognizance "at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day" after a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and impose a fine not exceeding ₹1,000 (simple imprisonment up to one month in default). Section 384(3) requires the record to "show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult". If imprisonment or a larger fine is warranted, Section 385 lets the court forward the case to a Magistrate. Under Section 387 the court may discharge the offender or remit the punishment "on apology being made to its satisfaction".

Section 72 BNS — disclosure of the victim's identity

1. Act — printing or publishing "the name or any matter which may make known the identity" of the victim.
2. Victim — a person against whom an offence under Sections 64 to 71 BNS "is alleged or found to have been committed". An allegation is enough; a conviction is not needed.
3. Exceptions, Section 72(2) — publication is not an offence if it is (a) by or under the written order of the officer-in-charge of the police station or the investigating officer, "acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation"; (b) by, or with the written authorisation of, the victim; or (c) where the victim is dead, a child or of unsound mind, by or with the written authorisation of the next of kin. The proviso limits (c): the next of kin may authorise only "the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation", meaning one recognised by the Central Government or the State Government.

Section 73 BNS — publishing court proceedings

1. Act — printing or publishing "any matter in relation to any proceeding before a Court" about an offence referred to in Section 72.
2. Missing element — the court's "previous permission".
3. Carve-out — the Explanation: publication of "the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court" is not an offence under this section.

What this means in practice

For the media, publishers and social-media users

• Section 72 reaches "any matter which may make known the identity" — not only the name. In Nipun Saxena (below), the Supreme Court read the same words in Section 228A to mean that identity "should not be discernible from any matter published".
• Victims of the new Section 69 offence (deceitful means or false promise to marry) are now within the bar. Section 366(2) BNSS lists Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 BNS for in-camera trial but not Section 69, so, on a reading of the text, a Section 69 trial is not automatically in camera, while Section 73 BNS still requires the court's previous permission to publish matter about it.
• The Explanation to Section 73 covers only High Court and Supreme Court judgments, not trial-court orders or reports of hearings.

For the victim and her family

• An adult victim may authorise disclosure in writing (Section 72(2)(b)). For a victim who is dead, a child or of unsound mind, clause (c) applies with its proviso; Nipun Saxena directed that, for a dead victim or one of unsound mind, the next of kin's application be made to the Sessions Judge until the Government acts under the clause.
• A victim who files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC need not disclose her identity (Nipun Saxena, direction 4).

For police and investigating officers

• Section 72(2)(a) protects only disclosure "by or under the order in writing" of the officer-in-charge or the investigating officer, "acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation". Nipun Saxena directed that FIRs in these offences not be put in the public domain and that documents naming the victim be kept, as far as possible, in sealed cover.

For advocates and courts

• Section 267 is non-cognizable. An insult committed in the court's view or presence may be dealt with summarily under Section 384 BNSS; otherwise, where it is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in any court, Section 215(1)(b) BNSS bars cognizance except on the written complaint of that court (or an officer it authorises in writing, or a court to which it is subordinate).
• A disclosure under Section 72 or 73 is cognizable and bailable, and any Magistrate may try it.

Judgments that still matter

Nipun Saxena & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [2018] 14 S.C.R. 755 — 11 December 2018. Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta JJ., in a writ petition, construed Section 228A IPC and issued directions. The Court held that the phrase "matter which may make known the identity of the person" does not mean only the name: "the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media" (para 11). Because the POCSO Act deals with minors, it held that the words "or minor" should "for all intents and purposes be deemed to be deleted" from Section 228A(2)(c) (para 15). Noting that no Government had recognised any welfare institution for next-of-kin authorisations (para 16), and acting under Article 142, it directed that applications to authorise disclosure be made to the Sessions Judge or Magistrate (para 21). Its directions in para 43 include: no one may print or publish the victim's name or "even in a remote manner" disclose facts that would identify her; FIRs in these offences shall not be put in the public domain; and police should keep documents naming the victim in sealed cover as far as possible. Section 72 BNS repeats the words construed; clause (2)(c) now reads "a child" rather than "minor", so whether para 15 carries over to Section 72 is a question the text does not answer — a reading, not a holding.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 532 — 16 January 1996. Dr. A.S. Anand and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ. allowed the State's appeal against acquittal and convicted the respondents of offences including rape under Section 376 IPC. Construing Section 327(2) and (3) CrPC, the Court said that when trials are held in camera, "it would not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to the proceedings in the case, except with the previous permission of the Court", that courts "should as far as possible, avoid disclosing the name of the prosecutrix in their orders", and that trial of rape cases in camera "should be the rule" (report pages 555–556; the report prints no paragraph numbers). Section 366(2) and (3) BNSS carry the in-camera rule forward, and the same previous-permission requirement appears in Section 73 BNS.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu, 2026 INSC 290 — 24 March 2026. Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ. allowed the State's appeal against a High Court acquittal in a case of rape of a nine-year-old girl and directed the respondent to surrender (para 14 and the order following it). The Court recorded that the victim's name "is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record", which "must be deprecated in the strongest terms" (paragraph before para 6), and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrars General of all High Courts to ensure that, in pending matters dated before Nipun Saxena, "the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly" (para 15). The case applied the IPC; the words it enforced are repeated in Section 72 BNS.

No Supreme Court judgment applying Sections 72, 73 or 267 BNS, or construing Section 228 IPC, was found in the corpus searched for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS preserves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that text, an insult or a disclosure before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 228 or 228A IPC. Proceedings pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars "a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence"; on a reading of that Article, the ₹5,000 fine in Section 267 cannot be imposed for earlier conduct, and publishing the identity of a Section 69 BNS victim is an offence only for publication on or after 1 July 2024. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 228A IPC? Section 228A IPC is split into two BNS sections. Sub-sections (1) and (2), which punish disclosing the identity of a victim of rape and related offences and set out the exceptions, are now Section 72 BNS. Sub-section (3), which punishes publishing court proceedings without the court's previous permission, is now Section 73 BNS.

What is the punishment for disclosing the identity of a rape victim under the BNS? Under Section 72(1) BNS, whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim of an offence under Sections 64 to 71 BNS is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to two years and is also liable to fine. This is the same punishment as Section 228A(1) IPC. The BNSS First Schedule lists the offence as cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate.

Which offences does the victim-identity bar in Section 72 BNS cover? Section 72(1) BNS covers offences under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 BNS. Section 69 BNS, sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or a false promise to marry, is a new offence with no IPC counterpart, so its victims are now protected by the bar. Section 228A IPC listed Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E IPC.

When can a sexual-offence victim's name be published lawfully? Section 72(2) BNS permits publication by or under the written order of the officer-in-charge of the police station or the investigating officer acting in good faith for the investigation; by, or with the written authorisation of, the victim; or, where the victim is dead or a child or of unsound mind, with the written authorisation of the next of kin, who may give it only to the chairman or secretary of a recognised welfare institution or organisation. In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed that, for a dead victim or one of unsound mind, the next of kin's application should be made to the Sessions Judge until the Government lays down criteria for recognising such institutions.

Can the media report a rape trial under the BNS? Section 73 BNS punishes printing or publishing any matter relating to a proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in Section 72 without the previous permission of that court, with imprisonment up to two years and fine. The Explanation to Section 73 says that printing or publishing the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court is not an offence under that section. Section 366(3) BNSS separately bars publication of in-camera proceedings without the court's previous permission.

What is the punishment for insulting a judge in court under the BNS? Section 267 BNS punishes intentionally insulting or interrupting a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding with simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. Section 228 IPC capped the fine at one thousand rupees. The offence is non-cognizable and bailable, and under Section 384 BNSS a court may deal with it summarily when it is committed in its view or presence.

Which law applies to a disclosure made before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted or continued as if the IPC had not been repealed, so, on a reading of that text, a disclosure or an insult before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 228A or Section 228 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time; on a reading of that Article, the five-thousand-rupee fine in Section 267 BNS cannot be imposed for earlier conduct.

Related

• Rape: IPC 375-376E vs BNS 63-71
• False promise of marriage — the new offence in BNS 69
• Sexual offences: IPC vs BNS
• Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants: IPC 172-180 vs BNS 206-215
• Victim rights and compensation
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• IPC to BNS master table
• Section 327 CrPC vs Section 366 BNSS — Court to be Open and In-Camera Trials
• Sections 340–352 CrPC vs Sections 379–391 BNSS — Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice
• Sections 195, 198 and 198A CrPC vs Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS — Restrictions on Prosecution: Complaint by Public Servant, Court or Person Aggrieved

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(3), 64 to 73, 267 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 228 and 228A, with the amendment footnotes and the Arunachal Pradesh State amendment.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 215(1), 359, 366, 384, 385, 387 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 72(1), 73 and 267 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 195(1), 320, 327, 345 to 348, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 228 and 228A IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018_14_755_790_EN.md); State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996_1_532_556_EN.md); State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu (Diary_4330-2015_Judgment.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.