Section 353 punishes making, publishing or circulating a statement, false information, rumour or report, including through electronic means, where it is intended or likely to cause mutiny or disregard of duty in the armed forces, to cause public fear or alarm leading to offences, to incite one class or community against another, or to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill will between groups. The punishment is up to three years, or fine, or both, and up to five years if committed in a place of worship or a religious assembly, where the First Schedule states “Imprisonment for 5 years and fine” and the section itself says the offender “shall also be liable to fine”. The section corresponds to IPC Section 505, with new words added.
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 353 descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860. The concordance table shows no “Change” marker against it, but the word-by-word comparison of the two texts found added words, so the row is shown as Substantively changed:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 353 | S.505 “Statements conducing public mischief” | Substantively changed |
A word-by-word comparison of BNS Section 353 with IPC Section 505 (sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) and the Exception) shows the following differences in the operative words, and no others. Added words: (i) in sub-section (1), the list of things made, published or circulated reads “any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means”, where IPC Section 505(1) reads “any statement, rumour or report” — the words “false information” and “including through electronic means” are added; (ii) in sub-section (2), the BNS reads “any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means”, where IPC Section 505(2) reads “any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news” — “false information” and “including through electronic means” are added; (iii) in the Exception, the words “false information” are added in both places where the IPC lists “statement, rumour or report”. Spelling and punctuation only: the BNS reads “tranquillity” where the IPC copy consulted reads “tranquility”; the BNS reads “ill will” in sub-section (2) where the IPC reads “ill-will”; and the BNS has a comma after “rumour” in the list in sub-section (1). Unchanged: the three situations in sub-section (1)(a) to (c), the mental elements (“with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause”), the grounds listed in sub-section (2), sub-section (3) (place of worship or religious assembly) and the punishments (imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, for sub-sections (1) and (2); imprisonment which may extend to five years and liability to fine for sub-section (3)). The IPC also prints marginal sub-headings for its sub-sections (2) and (3) (“Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or illwill between classes” and “Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.”), which have no counterpart in the BNS text. The IPC’s own heading for Section 505 is worded “Statements conducing public mischief” in the copy of the IPC consulted; the BNS heading reads “Statements conducing to public mischief”. The label is Substantively changed because words have been added to the operative text in each of sub-sections (1) and (2) and in the Exception.
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) 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.
Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, false information, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, false information, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Sub-section (1) begins with the act: the accused “makes, publishes or circulates” any statement, false information, rumour, or report, and the sub-section adds “including through electronic means”. Three verbs are used, so a person who circulates (forwards or passes on) is within the words as much as the person who first makes or publishes. The word “false” qualifies “information” in that list; “statement”, “rumour” and “report” appear without it. The act must then be done in one of three situations, set out as alternatives in clauses (a), (b) and (c), each of which uses the words “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause”. Each clause is therefore worded to cover both an intended result and a result the statement is likely to have.
Clause (a) concerns the armed forces: causing any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India “to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such”. Section 2 does not define “mutiny”. Clause (b) concerns fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public, “whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity”; the clause has two steps, the fear or alarm, and the possibility that it will induce a person to commit such an offence. Section 2(27) says that “public” includes any class of the public or any community. Clause (c) concerns inciting any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community.
The punishment for all three clauses is imprisonment (the sub-section does not say “of either description”) which may extend to three years, or fine, or both. In the BNSS First Schedule sub-section (1) is classified as non-cognizable and non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and it is not compoundable. Related provisions deal with overlapping conduct in different terms: Section 197(1)(d), for example, concerns making or publishing false or misleading information jeopardising the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India, and Section 152 concerns acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The Exception printed at the end of Section 353 applies to this sub-section as well as to sub-sections (2) and (3), and is discussed in the block on sub-section (3).
Sub-section (2) concerns a different subject: statements or reports that create or promote enmity between groups. The ingredients are: (i) the accused makes, publishes or circulates a statement or report “containing false information, rumour or alarming news”, including through electronic means; (ii) with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will; (iii) on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community, “or any other ground whatsoever”; and (iv) between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The feelings must be between such groups, not merely between two individuals. The closing words “any other ground whatsoever” mean that the listed grounds are not exhaustive.
As in sub-section (1), the mental element is worded “with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote”, so both an intended result and a likely result are covered. Sub-section (2) is close in subject matter to Section 196(1)(a), which punishes promoting or attempting to promote, on the same kinds of grounds, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between the same kinds of groups, by words, signs, visible representations or electronic communication. The two are worded differently: Section 353(2) requires a statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, and Section 196(1)(a) does not use those words. Which section is engaged on a given set of facts depends on the words of each.
The punishment is imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, the same term as sub-section (1). The BNSS First Schedule nevertheless classifies the two sub-sections differently: sub-section (1) is non-cognizable, while sub-section (2) is cognizable; both are non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and not compoundable. The Exception at the end of the section applies to sub-section (2) as it does to the others.
Sub-section (3) raises the punishment where a person “commits an offence specified in sub-section (2)” in either of two settings: in any place of worship, or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies. The two settings are alternatives. The second does not depend on the place: an assembly engaged in religious worship or ceremonies is covered wherever it is held. The sub-section refers only to an offence specified in sub-section (2); as printed, it does not mention sub-section (1). The punishment is imprisonment which may extend to five years, and the offender “shall also be liable to fine”. The BNSS First Schedule row for sub-section (3) lists imprisonment for 5 years and fine, and classifies it as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate; it is not compoundable. Sections 196(2) and 197(2) use the same place-of-worship wording for their own offences.
The Exception is printed after sub-section (3), but it is not part of sub-section (3): it says that it does not amount to an offence “within the meaning of this section”, so it covers the whole of Section 353. Its requirements are set out as a chain joined by “and”: the person making, publishing or circulating the statement, false information, rumour or report (i) has reasonable grounds for believing that it is true, and (ii) makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith, and (iii) without any such intent as aforesaid, that is, without the intents the section describes. “Good faith” is defined in Section 2(11): nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. “Reasonable grounds” is not defined in Section 2. On the words of the Exception, the question is what the person had reasonable grounds to believe about whether the statement, false information, rumour or report was true.
The Exception applies to a person who satisfies all three of its requirements; whether they are made out in a given case depends on the facts of the case. The concordance section above records that the BNS Exception, like sub-sections (1) and (2), includes the words “false information”, which the IPC Exception did not.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 353 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, a Kashmiri youth living in Hyderabad, was tried by a Designated Court under the anti-terrorism law (TADA). He was acquitted of the TADA offences but convicted of sedition (old Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code), of promoting enmity between groups (old Section 153-A) and of making statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes (old Section 505(2)), and of an Arms Act offence. The prosecution’s evidence on the last two was that he went about telling people that the Indian Army was committing atrocities on Muslims in Kashmir.
The Supreme Court held that both offences require feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will to be promoted “between different” groups, so at least two groups or communities must be involved; merely inciting feeling in one community, without reference to another, does not attract either section. Because the appellant had done nothing against any other religious, racial, linguistic or regional group or community, his convictions under old Sections 153-A and 505(2) could not stand. Old Section 505(2) is now Section 353(2) of the Sanhita. The Court also set aside the sedition conviction, because the charge contained no allegation of anything done against the Government.
Under sub-sections (1) and (2), imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or both. Under sub-section (3), where the offence in sub-section (2) is committed in a place of worship or in an assembly engaged in religious worship or ceremonies, imprisonment which may extend to five years, and the offender is also liable to fine.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-bailable in all three sub-sections, and triable by any Magistrate. Sub-section (1) is classed as non-cognizable; sub-sections (2) and (3) are classed as cognizable. It is not compoundable under BNSS Section 359.
The section applies to a person who makes, publishes or circulates the statement, false information, rumour or report, including through electronic means. “Circulates” is among the words used, so passing on material is within the words of the section, provided the other requirements are met.
The Exception at the end of the section says that it does not amount to an offence when the person has reasonable grounds for believing the statement, false information, rumour or report is true, and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid. Belief alone is not the test: the Exception sets out three requirements, joined by “and”, and all of them are part of the Exception.
Both concern enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups on grounds such as religion, race, language, caste or community. Section 353(2) requires a statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news; Section 196(1)(a) speaks of promoting or attempting to promote such feelings by words, signs, visible representations or electronic communication, and does not use those words.
The three situations in sub-section (1), the grounds in sub-section (2), sub-section (3) and the punishments are the same. The BNS text adds “false information” in sub-sections (1) and (2) and in the Exception, and adds “including through electronic means” in sub-sections (1) and (2).