BACK TO SECTIONS
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK

Section 353

Statements conducing to public mischief

Replaces colonial-era: IPC 505

BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableMagistrate First Class

Reform Highlights

1

Renumbered from IPC 505 to BNS 353.

2

'Electronic communication' explicitly added — directly targets viral fake news on digital platforms.

3

Good faith exception preserved.

THE STATUTE

The Clause

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report— (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... (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 tranquility; 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...

Legal Commentary

Section 353 is the BNS's primary tool against fake news and misinformation that creates public disorder or incites communal violence. The section targets three categories: (a) content designed to incite military mutiny, (b) content causing public fear that might incite crimes against the State or public tranquility, and (c) content inciting one community to commit crimes against another. The BNS significantly broadens IPC 505's scope by adding explicit coverage of 'electronic communication' — directly addressing the viral spread of false rumours via WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter that has repeatedly led to mob lynchings, communal riots, and child-kidnapping panics in India. The critical mental element is either intent or likelihood — if the maker of a false statement intended to cause fear or communal incitement, or if the content is the kind that is 'likely' to cause such harm even without specific intent, the offence is made out. An important exception: a person cannot be convicted if they had reasonable grounds to believe the statement was true and made it in good faith. This protects genuine journalism and good-faith reporting. The aggravated form — making such statements in a place of worship or assembly — carries up to 5 years.

Landmark Precedents

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

AIR 1962 SC 955
RELEVANCE

Only speech with tendency to incite public disorder, not merely critical or unpopular speech, attracts the public mischief provisions — established constitutional limits on BNS 353.

Case Simulations

"A WhatsApp forward falsely claiming a particular community is poisoning water supplies, leading to communal violence — BNS 353(c)."
"A social media post falsely claiming the army has revolted against the government — BNS 353(a)."
"Fabricating and spreading a viral 'child kidnapper alert' about an innocent person, leading to a mob attack — BNS 353(b)."
"A journalist who accurately reports on rising communal tensions based on genuine evidence — protected by the good faith exception."

Expert Insights

If the content falls under any of the three sub-categories (mutiny incitement, public fear, communal incitement) and you have intent to cause harm or can be shown to have been reckless about the content's falsity, yes. Good faith forwarding of what appeared to be genuine information, without knowledge of its falsity, is protected by the good faith exception.
Content that falsely claims a vaccine causes instant death and thereby 'causes fear or alarm to the public' whereby people refuse life-saving treatment may fall under BNS 353(b). Courts would assess whether the harm caused is of the nature contemplated by the section.