Section 298 punishes a person who destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, either with the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider the destruction, damage or defilement an insult to their religion. The punishment is imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both. It is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's version of IPC Section 295, and the wording and punishment are the same.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 298 is marked Exact — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with no change in wording or punishment:
| BNS 298 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 298 | Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class | S.295 “Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class” | Exact |
Comparing the two texts word by word, the operative provision of BNS Section 298 matches IPC Section 295: the same three acts (destroys, damages or defiles), the same two objects (a place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons), the same two alternative mental states (intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons, or knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider the act an insult to their religion), and the same punishment (imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both, with no stated ceiling on the fine). The only difference is in the marginal heading, where the IPC reads “place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class” and the BNS heading reads “place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class”; the heading is not part of the operative text.
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
It has three parts: the act, the object, and the mental state. The act is that the person destroys, damages or defiles. The Sanhita does not define these three verbs in this section; the words take their ordinary meaning. The object is either a place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons. The Sanhita does not define “place of worship” or “sacred” in Section 2; on the words of the section, what matters for the second kind of object is that it is held sacred by a class of persons.
The mental state can be shown in either of two ways, joined by “or”. One is intention: the act is done “with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons”. The other is knowledge: the act is done “with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion”. The second route means that a person who does not care about insulting anyone, but knows that the act will likely be taken as an insult, is still within the section. What the section does not punish is a destruction, damage or defilement done without either intent or that knowledge, for example a purely accidental damage; other provisions may apply to such damage, but Section 298 requires the mental state.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both, with no stated ceiling on the fine. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is cognizable (the police may arrest without a warrant), non-bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. It is not one of the offences listed in the compounding tables of BNSS Section 359 (the only offence from the religion Chapter listed there is Section 302), so it cannot be compounded. Be careful to distinguish it from its neighbours. Section 299 concerns deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, and the First Schedule places it before a Magistrate of the first class with a three-year ceiling. Section 300 concerns disturbing a religious assembly. Section 301 concerns trespassing on burial places and similar places. Section 302 concerns uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Section 298 is the only one of these that turns on physical destruction, damage or defilement of a place of worship or sacred object. Where the same act also amounts to mischief, other sections such as Section 324 may be relevant alongside it. Compared with IPC Section 295, the operative wording and the punishment are the same.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 298 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A complainant in Tiruchirappalli alleged that the leader of a community that campaigns against idol worship announced, and then carried out, the breaking of an image of the god Ganesa in public at the Town Hall Maidan on 27 May 1953, intending to insult the religious feelings of those who hold that god in veneration. Two others were said to have helped. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, holding that a mud figure of Ganesa was not “an object held sacred”; the Sessions Judge agreed, and so did the High Court, which said the phrase covered only idols in temples or idols carried in festival processions.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had read the words of old Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 298 of the Sanhita, far too narrowly. Nothing in the section limits it to idols in temples or in processions; idols are only illustrative, a sacred book is equally covered, and any object, however trivial, that a class of persons regards as sacred falls within the words. Because the complaint had by then stood dismissed for about five years, the Court did not order further inquiry, but it stressed that courts must be circumspect in such matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of different classes of persons.
Not necessarily. The section allows two alternative mental states: the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons, or the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider the destruction, damage or defilement an insult to their religion. Either one is enough.
Any place of worship, and any object held sacred by any class of persons. The section is not tied to any one religion; it covers the places and objects of every class.
Under the BNSS First Schedule it is cognizable and non-bailable, and it is triable by any Magistrate. It is not compoundable under BNSS Section 359.
Imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both. The section does not state a ceiling on the fine.
No. The operative wording and the punishment are the same in both Acts; a word-by-word comparison of the two texts found no difference in them. The only difference is a small variation in the marginal heading, which is not part of the operative text.