Section 295A IPC vs Section 299 BNS — Outraging Religious Feelings

In India, Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The offence of insulting a class's religion with deliberate and malicious intent is unchanged, save that "through electronic means" is now named; the three-year maximum and the sanction bar remain.

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 295A IPC as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class (the "Ditto" entries trace to the Section 295 row), so the classification is unchanged. Neither Section 320 CrPC nor Section 359 BNSS lists the offence, so it is not compoundable under either Code.

The neighbouring offences relating to religion moved with it: Section 295 IPC is now Section 298 BNS, Sections 296 and 297 IPC are Sections 300 and 301 BNS, and Section 298 IPC is Section 302 BNS. Chapter XV of the IPC ("Of offences relating to religion") is Chapter XVI of the BNS.

What changed

• Minor edit — modes of insult: Section 295A IPC read "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise". Section 299 BNS reads "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise". Because the IPC list already ended "or otherwise", on a reading of the text the new words name a mode rather than create a new offence.
• Identical — intent, conduct and class: "with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India" and "insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class" are repeated word for word.
• Identical — punishment: imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both. (The India Code footnotes record that the IPC maximum was two years until Act 41 of 1961 substituted "three years".)
• Identical — marginal heading: "Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs."
• Renumbered — procedure: the sanction bar moves from Section 196(1)(a) CrPC to Section 217(1)(a) BNSS; the forfeiture power for publications from Section 95 CrPC to Section 98 BNSS; and security for good behaviour from Section 108 CrPC to Section 127 BNSS. Each BNSS provision names Section 299 BNS where the CrPC named Section 295A IPC.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 295A IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Extract, Section 299 BNS:

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

How it works — the ingredients

Section 299 BNS has four elements, each drawn from its words.

1. A mode of expression — words spoken or written, signs, visible representations, electronic means, "or otherwise". A post, a video, a caption or a broadcast can each carry the insult.
2. An insult, or an attempt to insult — the target is "the religion or the religious beliefs" of a class. An attempt is enough; the insult need not have succeeded.
3. A class of citizens of India — the section protects the religious feelings of a class, not of an individual. Words aimed at one person's religious feelings fall under Section 302 BNS instead.
4. Deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class — both adjectives apply. The Supreme Court has read this as the element that confines the offence (see Ramji Lal Modi and Dhoni below).

Neighbouring offences:

• Section 298 BNS (formerly 295 IPC) — destroying, damaging or defiling a place of worship or sacred object with intent to insult religion; up to two years, cognizable, non-bailable.
• Section 302 BNS (formerly 298 IPC) — words, sounds, gestures or objects with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person; up to one year, non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable by that person under Section 359(1) BNSS.
• Section 196 BNS (formerly 153A IPC) — promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and other grounds.
• Section 353(2) BNS (formerly 505(2) IPC) — statements containing false information, rumour or alarming news with intent to create enmity between groups.

What this means in practice

For the complainant

• The offence is cognizable, so information can be given to the police under Section 173 BNSS. Because the maximum is three years, Section 173(3) applies: with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the officer in charge may conduct a preliminary enquiry "within a period of fourteen days" to see whether a prima facie case exists.
• The complaint should set out the actual words, images or content relied on, since the officer and later the court must read them to decide whether an offence is made out (Imran Pratapgadhi, para 26).

For the accused and defence advocate

• No court may take cognizance without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government (Section 217(1)(a) BNSS). A charge-sheet or complaint filed without sanction runs into that bar.
• Where the content is political criticism, satire or art with no reference to any religion, the ingredients of intent and insult are the first line of challenge. Imran Pratapgadhi quashed an FIR at the threshold and held that an early stage of investigation is no absolute bar to quashing (para 42(vii)); the power is now in Section 528 BNSS (formerly 482 CrPC) and Article 226.
• The offence is non-bailable, so bail is a matter for the court.

For publishers and platforms

• Under Section 98 BNSS, the State Government may, by notification stating its grounds, declare forfeited any newspaper issue, book or document containing matter whose publication is punishable under Section 299 BNS. Section 99 BNSS allows an application to the High Court to set the declaration aside "within two months from the date of publication in the Official Gazette".
• Under Section 127(1) BNSS, an Executive Magistrate may require a person who intentionally disseminates such matter to show cause why a bond for good behaviour should not be ordered, for a period "not exceeding one year".

Judgments that still matter

Ramji Lal Modi v. The State of U.P., [1957] S.C.R. 860 — 5 April 1957. A five-Judge Bench (judgment of the Court delivered by S. R. Das C.J.) dismissed a petition under Article 32 challenging Section 295A as violating Article 19(1)(a). The Court held that the section penalises only insults "perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class", and that: "It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class." It held the section protected by Article 19(2) as a law "in the interests of" public order, noting that Articles 25 and 26 themselves make freedom of religion subject to public order. The report does not show paragraph numbers. Section 299 BNS repeats the words the Court construed.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar & Anr., [2017] 3 S.C.R. 763 — 20 April 2017. A three-Judge Bench (Dipak Misra J. delivering the judgment) quashed a complaint under Section 295A read with Section 34 IPC over a magazine cover showing the petitioner with the caption "God of Big Deals". Applying Ramji Lal Modi, the Court said: "Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section" (para 7). It found the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients (para 10), extended the quashing to the co-accused editor (para 13), and cautioned Magistrates to scrutinise whether a complaint meets the basic ingredients before issuing summons (para 14).

Amish Devgan v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 14 S.C.R. 198 (2020 INSC 682) — 7 December 2020. A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna JJ. considered FIRs under Sections 153A, 295A and 505(2) IPC against a television anchor. The Court read Section 295A as combining content, intent and harm elements, and said that "it does not on the basis of content alone makes a person guilty of the offence" (para 65); it summarised Ramji Lal Modi as holding that the section curbs speech made with "malicious intent" and not "offensive speech" (para 31). It declined to quash the FIRs, transferred the later FIRs to the police station of the first FIR, and granted interim protection from arrest subject to cooperation with the investigation (paras 85, 87).

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 (2025 INSC 410) — 28 March 2025. Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ. (judgment authored by Oka J.) quashed an FIR registered under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) BNS against a Member of the Rajya Sabha over a poem recited in the background of a video he posted. On Section 299 the Court said: "To say the least, it is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs" (para 17). It held that the preliminary-enquiry option in Section 173(3) BNSS was available because the offences alleged (other than Section 57, which it found inapplicable on its face) carry less than seven years (para 28), and that for offences under laws covered by Article 19(2) it is "always appropriate" to conduct that enquiry where Section 173(3) applies (para 42(v)). The High Court's order was set aside and the FIR quashed (para 44).

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive 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 provision, an insult to religion before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 295A IPC. Investigations and trials pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time of the offence; as the punishment in Section 299 is the same as in Section 295A, no question of a heavier penalty arises. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 295A IPC? Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 295A IPC from 1 July 2024. It punishes a person who, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class. The maximum remains imprisonment of either description for three years, or fine, or both.

What changed between Section 295A IPC and Section 299 BNS? Only the list of modes. Section 299 BNS adds "through electronic means" to words, signs and visible representations, before the closing words "or otherwise". Every other word of Section 295A IPC, including the punishment, is repeated in Section 299.

Is an offence under Section 299 BNS bailable? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists Section 299 BNS as cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 295A IPC the same way.

Can a court take cognizance of Section 299 BNS without government sanction? No. Section 217(1)(a) BNSS bars any court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 299 BNS, or of a criminal conspiracy to commit it, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. Section 196(1)(a) CrPC imposed the same bar for Section 295A IPC. Under Section 217(4), the government may first order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector.

Does every insult to a religion fall under Section 299 BNS? No. The section requires a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens. In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. ([1957] S.C.R. 860) a Constitution Bench held that Section 295A punishes only this aggravated form of insult, and in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar ([2017] 3 S.C.R. 763, para 7) the Court repeated that insults offered unwittingly or carelessly do not come within it. Section 299 BNS repeats the words those judgments construed.

What is the difference between Section 299 and Section 302 BNS? Section 299 BNS protects the religious feelings of a class of citizens and requires deliberate and malicious intention; it carries up to three years and is cognizable and non-bailable. Section 302 BNS (formerly Section 298 IPC) covers words, sounds, gestures or objects directed at the religious feelings of any person, carries up to one year, is non-cognizable and bailable, and is compoundable under Section 359(1) BNSS by the person whose feelings were intended to be wounded.

Must the police register an FIR for an alleged Section 299 offence? Section 173(3) BNSS allows the officer in charge, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to hold a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days for cognizable offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410, para 42(v)) the Supreme Court said that where the allegation is of an offence under a law covered by Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it is always appropriate to conduct that preliminary inquiry if Section 173(3) applies.

Which law applies to an insult to religion before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties and proceedings under the IPC "as if that Code had not been repealed", so, on a reading of that provision, conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 295A IPC. Because the text and punishment of Section 299 BNS are the same, the choice of Act does not change the ingredients or the maximum sentence.

Related

• Offences relating to religion — BNS 298-302 vs IPC 295-298
• Section 153A IPC vs Section 196 BNS — Promoting Enmity
• Hate speech and promoting enmity — BNS 196 vs IPC 153A
• Section 505 IPC vs Section 353 BNS — Statements Conducing to Public Mischief
• Police refuse to register an FIR — remedies under BNSS
• Section 482 CrPC — inherent powers of the High Court
• IPC to BNS master table
• 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, 298 to 302 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 295, 295A (with amendment footnotes), 296 to 298.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 98, 99, 127, 173, 217, 359 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 298 to 302 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 95, 108, 196 and 320, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 295 and 295A IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Ramji Lal Modi v. The State of U.P. (1957_1_860_868_EN.md); Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017_3_763_771_EN.md); Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020_14_198_293_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.