BACK TO SECTIONS
IPC 1860REPEALED

Section 228

Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding

Replaced by: BNS 264

BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableThe Court in which the offence is committed
THE STATUTE

Original Text

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Simplified

Section 228 was the primary IPC provision for maintaining the dignity and functioning of courts. It penalised any behaviour that insulted a judge or interrupted court proceedings. Unlike the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (which covers a broader range of conduct including scandalising the court), Section 228 is specifically for in-court disruptions. It is one of the few sections where the court itself can summarily try the offender — since the judge directly witnessed the contemptuous act. The provision protects not just courts but any public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding, including inquiry committees, administrative tribunals, and official hearings.

Legal Evolution

Section 228 protects the dignity and functioning of judicial proceedings — a concern central to both English contempt law and the IPC's scheme for preventing obstruction of justice. It applies to deliberate insults or interruptions during court sessions, covering both civil and criminal proceedings. Unlike the broader law of contempt of court (which operates through courts' inherent powers), Section 228 provides a specific statutory criminal offence tried by a magistrate.

Landmark Precedents

Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974)

AIR 1974 SC 710
RELEVANCE

Distinguished IPC Section 228 in-court contempt from Contempt of Courts Act contempt — Section 228 requires intentional insult or interruption during proceedings; summary trial by the affected court is proper.

Practical Scenarios

"Abusing a judge during a hearing."
"Throwing an object at a magistrate."
"Persistently interrupting the court despite warnings."

Common Queries

Yes — if it causes an 'interruption' to the judicial proceeding or is intended as an 'insult' to the presiding officer.