BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1957 SC 620(2015) 5 SCC 1
Bailable / Non-BailableCognizable: Non-Cognizable / CognizableMagistrate First Class
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 295–298, 171B–171E, 264–267 to BNS 291–302.
2
Religious offence provisions (Sections 293–298) unchanged despite free speech concerns.
3
Electoral offences retained — supplements Representation of the People Act 1951.
4
False weights and measures in digital commerce contexts now covered.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Section 293: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Section 295: Disturbing religious assembly. Section 296: Trespassing on burial places. Section 298: Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Section 299: Bribery at elections. Section 302: Using false weights or measures.
Legal Commentary
Sections 291–302 cover a heterogeneous cluster of offences protecting religious sentiment, electoral integrity, and fair commerce. Section 293 (deliberate and malicious acts to outrage religious feelings) is one of the most controversial provisions in Indian criminal law — it has been used to prosecute writers, artists, filmmakers, and comedians for creative works that allegedly insult religion, and its tension with free speech under Article 19(1)(a) has been repeatedly litigated. The Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957) upheld its constitutionality as a reasonable restriction on free speech, but courts have gradually narrowed its application — requiring both deliberate intent and the likelihood of public disorder. Section 295 (disturbing religious assembly) and Section 296 (trespassing on burial grounds) protect the physical spaces of religious practice. Section 298 (uttering words to wound religious feelings) is a broader catch-all for verbal attacks on religion. Together, these provisions form a framework that attempts to balance religious sensitivity with free expression — a balance India has found chronically difficult to strike. Sections 299–301 cover electoral offences — bribery at elections (offering money, employment, or goods to influence a vote), undue influence (intimidation of voters), personation of voters (voting in someone else's name), and making false declarations in electoral proceedings. These provisions supplement the Representation of the People Act 1951's more comprehensive electoral offence framework. Section 302 (false weights and measures) — using calibrated fraud instruments to cheat buyers — is one of the oldest commercial crimes, targeting the corruption of market integrity at its most fundamental level.
Landmark Precedents
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)
RELEVANCE
Constitutional bench upheld Section 295A IPC (now BNS 293) as a reasonable restriction on free speech — but required both deliberate malicious intent and the likely effect of disturbing public order.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
RELEVANCE
While striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court's reasoning on the chilling effect of overbroad speech restrictions has influenced how courts apply Section 295A/BNS 293.
Case Simulations
"A person who deliberately burns a religious text in a public place intending to provoke the followers of that religion — BNS 293."
"A politician who distributes cash envelopes to slum residents during election week — electoral bribery under BNS 299."
"A vegetable vendor who uses weights that are 20% lighter than marked — false weights under BNS 302."
"A group that plays loud music outside a mosque during Friday prayers to disturb worship — disturbing religious assembly under BNS 295."
Expert Insights
The provision requires 'deliberate and malicious intent' to outrage religious feelings. Courts have held that satire, criticism, and even offensive artistic expression fall within the protected space of free speech unless the work was deliberately malicious and likely to cause public disorder. The bar for prosecution is — or should be — high.
The Election Commission treats gifts or inducements to voters as electoral malpractice. Section 299 (bribery at elections) requires an element of direct inducement to vote in a particular way. Organised free food distribution to voters is prohibited under model code of conduct rules and may constitute bribery depending on the circumstances.