Offences of Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants under BNS: Chapter XIII Sections 206 to 226 and Landmark Cases

The state's authority rests on citizens' willingness to comply with its lawful commands. A summons served must be attended. A document required must be produced. A public order duly promulgated must be obeyed. When citizens refuse to comply with the state's lawful authority, whether by absconding from summons, giving false information, obstructing officials, or resisting apprehension, the administrative and judicial processes of the state are frustrated. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, protects the lawful authority of public servants through Chapter XIII, twenty-one provisions across Sections 206 to 226. The chapter also contains the significantly modernised Section 226 on attempted suicide to compel public servants, which is one of the few contexts where attempted suicide remains criminal after the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, decriminalised attempted suicide generally. This module walks through each section, the underlying framework of administrative and judicial process, and the leading cases from Emperor v Latif Khan through Rajiv Anand.

1. Introduction

The lawful authority of the state

Modern administration and justice depend on citizens' compliance with lawful directives. When a court summons a witness, the witness must attend. When a revenue officer requires production of documents, the documents must be produced. When police officers arrest a suspect on lawful authority, the suspect must submit. Chapter XIII addresses the specific offences by which citizens undermine these processes: absconding, refusing to attend, giving false information, obstructing officers, resisting apprehension. Each provision protects a specific dimension of the state's lawful authority.

Chapter XIII in the criminal law framework

Chapter XIII sits between Chapter XII (offences by public servants themselves) and Chapter XIV (false evidence and offences against public justice). It focuses on offences by ordinary citizens against the state's authority, rather than on offences by public servants (Chapter XII) or on offences against the judicial process specifically (Chapter XIV). Together the three chapters form the broader framework for protecting administrative and judicial processes.

The twenty-one provisions overviewed

Section	Offence	Punishment
Section 206	Absconding to avoid service of summons	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 207	Preventing service of summons	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 208	Non-attendance in obedience to order	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 209	Non-appearance in response to proclamation	Up to 3 or 7 years
Section 210	Omission to produce document	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 211	Omission to give notice/information	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 212	Furnishing false information	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 213	Refusing oath	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 214	Refusing to answer public servant	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 215	Refusing to sign statement	Up to 3 months or fine or both
Section 216	False statement on oath	Up to 3 years and fine
Section 217	False information with intent to cause use of lawful power	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 218	Resistance to taking of property	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 219	Obstructing sale of property	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 220	Illegal purchase/bid for property	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 221	Obstructing public servant	Up to 3 months or fine or both
Section 222	Omission to assist public servant	Up to 1 month or fine or both
Section 223	Disobedience to order duly promulgated	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 224	Threat of injury to public servant	Up to 2 years or fine or both
Section 225	Threat to induce refraining from protection	Up to 1 year or fine or both
Section 226	Attempt to suicide to compel public servant	Up to 1 year or fine or both, or community service

2. Summons and Attendance Offences

Section 206: Absconding to avoid service of summons

Section 206 BNS (formerly Section 172 IPC)

Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 206 punishes deliberate absconding to evade service of summons. Absconding here means going into hiding or otherwise making oneself unavailable for service. The absconding must be for the specific purpose of avoiding service. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 207: Preventing service of summons

Section 207 BNS (formerly Section 173 IPC)

Whoever, in any manner, intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 207 covers preventing service of summons, notices, or orders, including removing lawfully affixed notices or obstructing lawful proclamations. Punishment: same as Section 206.

Section 208: Non-attendance in obedience to order

Section 208 BNS (formerly Section 174 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 208 punishes failure to attend in obedience to summons, or unauthorised early departure. Punishment: same as Section 206. Common contexts: witnesses failing to attend court, parties failing to appear before revenue authorities, persons summoned by police failing to attend.

Section 209: Non-appearance in response to proclamation

Section 209 BNS (formerly Section 174A IPC)

Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that Section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 209 addresses proclaimed offenders under Section 84 BNSS. Where a court proclaims a person to appear and the person fails to do so, punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. Where the person is declared a proclaimed offender, punishment is enhanced to up to seven years and fine. This is a significant sanction, reflecting the state's response to persons who evade the judicial process.

3. Document and Information Offences

Section 210: Omission to produce document

Section 210 BNS (formerly Section 175 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 210 punishes failure to produce documents (including electronic records) required by public servants. The BNS specifically extends the provision to electronic records, reflecting modern administrative and judicial practice. Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 211: Omission to give notice or information

Section 211 BNS (formerly Section 176 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 211 addresses failure to give notice or information when legally required. Common contexts: failure to report births and deaths, failure to notify authorities of specified diseases, failure to give information about the movement of dangerous goods. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

Section 212: Furnishing false information

Section 212 BNS (formerly Section 177 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 212 punishes furnishing false information. Where a person legally bound to furnish information provides information known or believed to be false, punishment attaches: up to six months, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. This addresses the specific evil of misleading public authorities.

4. Oath, Answer, and Statement Offences

Section 213: Refusing oath when required

Section 213 BNS (formerly Section 178 IPC) punishes refusal to take oath or affirmation when required by a public servant lawfully authorised to require it. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

Section 214: Refusing to answer public servant

Section 214 BNS (formerly Section 179 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 214 punishes refusal to answer questions from public servants where legally bound to answer. This is subject to constitutional constraints: Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, so a person cannot be compelled to answer questions incriminating himself. But where the questions do not incriminate, refusal to answer attracts Section 214.

Section 215: Refusing to sign statement

Section 215 BNS (formerly Section 180 IPC) punishes refusal to sign a statement made to a public servant. Where the statement is duly recorded and the person refuses to sign, punishment: simple imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to three thousand rupees, or both.

Section 216: False statement on oath

Section 216 BNS (formerly Section 181 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorised by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes, touching that subject, any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 216 punishes false statements on oath, distinct from and additional to perjury under Chapter XIV. Where a person makes a false statement on oath to a public servant (not necessarily in a judicial proceeding), punishment: up to three years, and fine. This is significantly more severe than the mere refusal offences of Sections 213 to 215, reflecting the greater gravity of positive false statements.

5. Section 217: False Information with Intent to Cause Public Servant to Use Power

Section 217 BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC)

Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant:

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 217 addresses the specific evil of giving false information to cause public servants to use their power. Two limbs:

Causing the public servant to do (or omit) something he would not do (or omit) if the truth were known.
Causing the public servant to use lawful power to injure or annoy any person.

Common contexts: false reports to police leading to unjustified investigation of a rival; false complaints leading to raids or harassment; false information causing wrongful arrests. Punishment: up to one year, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

📖 Perumal v. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377

The Supreme Court considered a case of alleged false police complaint. The Court held that Section 182 IPC (now Section 217 BNS) applies where the false information was intended to or likely to cause the public servant to use lawful power to the injury or annoyance of the accused. Rule: causal connection between false information and use of power required.

6. Property and Sale Offences

Section 218: Resistance to taking of property

Section 218 BNS (formerly Section 183 IPC) punishes resistance to the taking of property by lawful authority. Common context: opposition to attachment and execution proceedings under court orders. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

Section 219: Obstructing sale of property

Section 219 BNS (formerly Section 184 IPC) punishes obstructing the sale of property offered for sale by public servant authority. Common context: opposition to court auction proceedings. Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 220: Illegal purchase or bid for property

Section 220 BNS (formerly Section 185 IPC) punishes purchase of property, or bidding for property, by persons legally prohibited from doing so. Common context: purchase by persons whose purchase or bidding was prohibited by court order or specific statute. Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

7. Obstruction and Disobedience Offences

Section 221: Obstructing public servant

Section 221 BNS (formerly Section 186 IPC)

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 221 is one of the most frequently invoked provisions of Chapter XIII. It punishes voluntary obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their functions. Common contexts: blocking police officers investigating a case, obstructing revenue officers making assessments, obstructing health inspectors, obstructing court officers making inspections. Punishment: up to three months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both.

Section 222: Omission to assist public servant

Section 222 BNS (formerly Section 187 IPC) punishes failure to render assistance to public servants when legally bound to do so. Common context: failure to assist police officers in preventing offences when called upon to do so. Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both.

Section 223: Disobedience to order duly promulgated

Section 223 BNS (formerly Section 188 IPC)

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 223 punishes disobedience of orders duly promulgated by public servants. Two-tier punishment:

Where disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance, or injury: up to six months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both.
Where disobedience causes danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes riot or affray: up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Common contexts: violations of prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (formerly Section 144 CrPC), violations of environmental orders, violations of health and safety orders. The provision is often invoked in situations of public disorder or public health emergencies.

8. Threat Offences

Section 224: Threat of injury to public servant

Section 224 BNS (formerly Section 189 IPC)

Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 224 punishes threats against public servants (or persons in whom they are interested) to influence the exercise of public functions. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

Section 225: Threat of injury to induce refraining from protection

Section 225 BNS (formerly Section 190 IPC)

Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any person for the purpose of inducing that person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against any injury to any public servant legally empowered as such to give such protection, or to cause such protection to be given, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 225 addresses threats aimed at deterring persons from seeking protection from public servants. Common context: threats to potential complainants of crimes to prevent them from approaching the police. Punishment: up to one year, or fine, or both.

9. Section 226: Attempt to Commit Suicide to Compel Public Servant

Text of Section 226

Section 226 BNS (a significantly modified provision after Mental Healthcare Act, 2017)

Whoever attempts to commit suicide with the intent to compel or restrain any public servant from discharging his official duty shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.

The BNS provision after Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

Section 226 BNS represents a significant modernisation. Section 309 IPC formerly criminalised attempted suicide generally. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Section 115, provided that any person who attempts suicide is presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under Section 309 IPC, effectively decriminalising attempted suicide in most cases.

The BNS drops the general Section 309 IPC offence and introduces the narrow Section 226 covering only attempted suicide with the specific intent to compel or restrain a public servant. This maintains the criminal law's response to attempted suicide as a tool of coercion (as in hunger strikes aimed at compelling official action, or threats of suicide to prevent lawful arrest) while decriminalising attempted suicide generally.

The narrow surviving criminal liability

Section 226 requires:

An attempt to commit suicide.
Specific intent to compel or restrain a public servant.
The compulsion or restraint must relate to the discharge of the public servant's official duty.

Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service. The community service option is significant, reflecting the understanding that even in this narrow surviving criminal context, mental health considerations may be relevant.

Application to hunger strikes aimed at compelling official policy changes.
Application to threats of suicide aimed at preventing lawful arrests.
Application to attempted suicide in police custody to prevent interrogation.

10. Constitutional Framework

Article 20(3): protection against self-incrimination. Applies to Section 214 (refusing to answer). A person cannot be compelled to answer questions incriminating himself, and refusal in such cases does not attract Section 214.
Article 21: right to life. Applies to Section 226 (attempted suicide). The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and modern Article 21 jurisprudence have significantly limited criminal liability for attempted suicide.
Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech. Applies to Section 212 (furnishing false information). Freedom does not extend to knowingly false information.
Article 22: procedural safeguards for persons arrested for Chapter XIII offences.

11. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Perumal v. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377

Discussed above. Causal connection between false information and use of power required for Section 182 IPC.

📖 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648

The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die. Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) was upheld as constitutional. This was subsequently modified by the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which effectively decriminalised attempted suicide in most cases. Section 226 BNS is now the surviving criminal provision.

📖 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454

The Supreme Court's landmark case on passive euthanasia and end-of-life decisions. The judgment influenced the broader framework for the criminal law treatment of attempted suicide, contributing to the eventual decriminalisation.

📖 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity and to advance medical directives (living wills). The judgment reflects the modern approach to end-of-life decisions that underlies the BNS treatment of attempted suicide.

📖 Rajiv Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) SC

The Supreme Court considered a case of obstruction of a public servant under Section 186 IPC (now Section 221 BNS). The Court held that the obstruction must actually impede the public servant in the discharge of duty; mere verbal expressions of protest are not obstruction. Rule: actual impediment required.

📖 Emperor v. Latif Khan, AIR 1946 Lah 217

The Lahore High Court considered the framework for Section 188 IPC (now Section 223 BNS) prosecutions. The Court held that the accused must know that the order applies to him, and the disobedience must be shown to have caused the specified consequences. Rule: knowledge and consequences must be proved.

📖 Amarendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2013) SCC OnLine SC

The Supreme Court considered a case of failure to appear in response to court proclamation. The Court applied Section 174A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) and confirmed the significant punishment. Rule: strict enforcement against proclaimed offenders.

📖 Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 15 SCC 82

The Supreme Court considered a case involving false information to police leading to prolonged investigation. The Court applied Section 182 IPC (now Section 217 BNS) and elaborated the ingredients. Rule: careful examination of the causal link.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75

The Supreme Court considered the interaction between Chapter XIII IPC offences and other criminal law provisions. The Court held that multiple provisions may apply to the same conduct. Rule: cumulative charging permitted.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Perumal v. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377. Causal connection for Section 182 IPC.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648. Article 21 and attempted suicide.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454. Passive euthanasia framework.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1. Right to die with dignity.
Rajiv Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) SC. Actual impediment required for obstruction.
Emperor v. Latif Khan, AIR 1946 Lah 217. Knowledge and consequences for Section 188.
Amarendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2013) SCC OnLine SC. Proclaimed offender enforcement.
Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 15 SCC 82. False information framework.
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75. Cumulative charging.
Emperor v. Karsandas Govindji, AIR 1935 Bom 208. Early framework for public authority offences.
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. Custodial safeguards impact on Chapter XIII offences.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. FIR registration and its impact.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263. Article 20(3) and Section 214.
K. K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358. Habeas corpus and Chapter XIII.
State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601. Modern application of witness attendance provisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XIII of the BNS?

Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains twenty-one provisions criminalising conduct that obstructs the lawful authority of public servants (Sections 206 to 226). The chapter covers absconding to avoid summons, non-attendance, failure to produce documents, furnishing false information, refusing to answer or sign statements, obstructing public servants, disobeying duly promulgated orders, threats against public servants, and attempted suicide to compel public servants. Punishments range from simple imprisonment for one month to two years, with most offences bailable.

What is Section 217 BNS?

Section 217 BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC) punishes giving false information to public servants with intent to cause them to: (a) do or omit something they ought not to do or omit if the truth were known; or (b) use their lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Common contexts: false reports to police leading to unjustified investigation, false complaints leading to raids or harassment, false information causing wrongful arrests. Punishment: up to one year, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. Perumal v Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377, elaborates the causal connection requirement.

What is Section 223 BNS on disobedience of orders?

Section 223 BNS (formerly Section 188 IPC) punishes disobedience of orders duly promulgated by public servants. Two-tier punishment: (i) where disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance, or injury: up to six months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both; and (ii) where disobedience causes danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes riot or affray: up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. Common contexts: violations of prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (formerly Section 144 CrPC), health and safety orders, environmental orders.

What is Section 226 BNS on attempted suicide?

Section 226 BNS is a significantly modified provision. Section 309 IPC formerly criminalised attempted suicide generally. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Section 115, effectively decriminalised attempted suicide in most cases (presuming severe stress). The BNS drops the general offence and introduces Section 226 covering only attempted suicide with specific intent to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging official duty. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service. Applications: hunger strikes for policy changes, threats of suicide to prevent arrest, attempted suicide in custody.

What is Section 221 BNS?

Section 221 BNS (formerly Section 186 IPC) punishes voluntary obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their functions. Punishment: up to three months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both. Common contexts: blocking police officers investigating a case, obstructing revenue officers, obstructing health inspectors, obstructing court officers making inspections. Rajiv Anand v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) SC, held that actual impediment to the public servant's duty is required; mere verbal expressions of protest are not sufficient.

Can a person be prosecuted for refusing to answer a public servant's questions?

Yes, under Section 214 BNS, subject to constitutional constraints. Section 214 punishes refusal to answer questions from public servants where legally bound to answer. However, Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects against self-incrimination, so a person cannot be compelled to answer questions incriminating himself. Where the questions do not incriminate, refusal to answer attracts Section 214. Selvi v State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, provides important framework for Article 20(3) analysis. The provision does not authorise coercion; it only imposes criminal law consequences for refusal where legal obligation exists.