Offences Against Public Tranquillity under BNS: Chapter XI Sections 189 to 197 and Landmark Cases

Public tranquillity is the condition in which citizens can go about their lives free from group violence, communal disturbance, and collective threats to their safety. When crowds gather with unlawful purposes, when riots break out, when religious or communal enmity is deliberately promoted, the peace on which ordinary civic life depends is broken. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, protects public tranquillity through Chapter XI, nine provisions across Sections 189 to 197. The chapter begins with the definition of unlawful assembly (Section 189) and its constructive liability rule (Section 190), moves through rioting (Section 191) and related offences, and concludes with two significant provisions on promoting enmity between groups (Section 196) and imputations prejudicial to national integration (Section 197). This module walks through the full chapter as an overview; separate modules address the two most examined offences of unlawful assembly and rioting in greater depth.

1. Introduction

Public tranquillity and civic order

Public tranquillity is the condition of collective peace that enables citizens to live and work without fear of group violence or communal disturbance. It is a condition that the state must actively protect, because it cannot be adequately maintained by individual citizens or by the operation of ordinary criminal law alone. Where crowds gather with unlawful purposes, or where speech is deliberately used to inflame communal or regional tensions, the individual criminal law of assault or hurt is insufficient. Chapter XI provides the specific collective and speech-focused offences that address these situations.

Chapter XI in the criminal law framework

Chapter XI sits at the intersection of several concerns:

Collective violence: offences committed by groups (unlawful assembly, rioting) that individual offence provisions may not adequately reach.
Public order maintenance: the state's interest in preventing disorder that could escalate to broader violence.
Speech regulation: the balance between freedom of expression and protection against inflammatory speech that could cause communal or regional tension.
Constructive liability: the doctrine that members of an unlawful group may be liable for offences committed by other members in prosecution of the common object.

The nine provisions overviewed

Section	Offence	Punishment
Section 189	Unlawful assembly (definition and being member)	Up to 6 months or fine or both
Section 190	Every member liable for offence in prosecution of common object	Same as the specific offence committed
Section 191	Rioting	Up to 2 years or fine or both (7 years with deadly weapon)
Section 192	Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot	Up to 1 year or fine or both
Section 193	Liability of owner or occupier for unlawful assembly or riot	Up to 1000 rupees
Section 194	Affray	Up to 1 month or fine up to 1000 rupees or both
Section 195	Assaulting or obstructing public servant suppressing riot	Up to 3 years or fine or both
Section 196	Promoting enmity between different groups	Up to 3 years or fine or both (5 years in place of worship)
Section 197	Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration	Up to 3 years or fine or both

2. Section 189 BNS: Unlawful Assembly

Text of Section 189

Section 189 BNS (formerly Section 141 IPC)

(1) An assembly of five or more persons is designated an 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:

(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation. An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

(2) Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.

(3) Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

The five common objects

Unlawful assembly requires that the assembly have one of five common objects. These are treated in detail in a separate module on Unlawful Assembly. The five objects in summary:

Object (a): overawing government or public servants.
Object (b): resisting execution of law or legal process.
Object (c): committing mischief, criminal trespass, or other offence.
Object (d): using force to take property or interfere with rights.
Object (e): using force to compel or restrain lawful conduct.

Punishment for being a member

Being a member of an unlawful assembly is itself an offence under Section 189(3), punishable with up to six months or fine or both. The offence is completed simply by being a member, whether or not any further offence is committed. This is the base offence; more serious punishments follow for the specific offences committed in prosecution of the common object.

3. Section 190 BNS: Constructive Liability

The classical rule

Section 190 BNS (formerly Section 149 IPC)

If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Section 190 is one of the most important provisions in the Indian criminal law. It imposes constructive liability: every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of any offence committed by any other member in prosecution of the common object, or which the members knew was likely to be committed. This dramatically expands criminal liability, ensuring that members of a violent mob cannot escape prosecution by arguing that they personally did not commit the specific act.

The three ingredients

An offence was committed by a member of the assembly.
The offence was committed in prosecution of the common object, or was one that members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
The accused was a member of the same assembly at the time the offence was committed.

The Masalti test

📖 Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202

The Supreme Court elaborated the framework for Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 BNS). The Court held that the section requires proof of the common object and the connection between the specific offence and that common object. The judgment is often cited for its emphasis on the specific evidence required to establish constructive liability. Rule: careful proof of common object and its connection to the specific offence.

4. Section 191 BNS: Rioting

Section 191 BNS (formerly Sections 146 and 148 IPC)

(1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

(2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 191 defines and punishes rioting. Ingredients:

An unlawful assembly (satisfying Section 189).
Force or violence used by the assembly or any member.
Force or violence used in prosecution of the common object.

Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both (Section 191(2)); up to three years where the accused was armed with a deadly weapon (Section 191(3)). Rioting is treated in detail in a separate module.

5. Section 192 BNS: Wantonly Provoking a Riot

Section 192 BNS (formerly Section 153 IPC)

Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 192 punishes wantonly provoking a riot. The mens rea requires malignancy or wantonness. The offence is graded:

If the riot is actually committed: up to one year, or fine, or both.
If the riot is not committed: up to six months, or fine, or both.

The provision addresses persons who deliberately provoke situations that lead to rioting, whether by inflammatory speech, symbolic acts, or other conduct.

6. Section 193 BNS: Liability of Owner or Occupier

Section 193 BNS (formerly Sections 154 and 155 IPC)

(1) Whenever any unlawful assembly or riot takes place, the owner or occupier of the land upon which such unlawful assembly is held, or such riot is committed, and any person having or claiming an interest in such land, shall be punishable with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, if he or his agent or manager, knowing that such offence is being or has been committed, or having reason to believe it is likely to be committed, does not give the earliest notice thereof in his power to the principal officer at the nearest police station, and does not, in the case of his having reason to believe that it was about to be committed, use all lawful means in his power to prevent it, and in the event of its taking place, does not use all lawful means in his power to disperse or suppress the riot or unlawful assembly.

Section 193 imposes a specific duty on landowners and occupiers to prevent unlawful assemblies and riots on their land. The duty has three components:

Give the earliest notice to police.
Use lawful means to prevent the offence if there is reason to believe it is about to occur.
Use lawful means to disperse or suppress the assembly or riot.

Punishment: fine up to one thousand rupees. The provision reflects the classical view that landowners bear responsibility for what happens on their property, even if committed by others.

7. Section 194 BNS: Affray

Section 194 BNS (formerly Sections 159 and 160 IPC)

(1) When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to 'commit an affray'.

(2) Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Affray is fighting in a public place that disturbs the public peace. Three ingredients:

Two or more persons fighting.
In a public place.
Disturbing the public peace.

Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. The offence is treated less severely than rioting because it typically involves smaller numbers and less severe conduct.

8. Section 195 BNS: Assault on Public Servant Suppressing Riot

Section 195 BNS (formerly Section 152 IPC)

Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens or attempts to use, criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 195 protects public servants who are trying to disperse unlawful assemblies or suppress riots. Assault, threat, or obstruction of such servants attracts up to three years imprisonment. The provision recognises the specific difficulty and danger of the state's crowd-control operations.

9. Section 196 BNS: Promoting Enmity Between Groups

Text of Section 196

Section 196 BNS (formerly Section 153A IPC)

(1) Whoever:

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or
(c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such activity, for any reason whatsoever, causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1), 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.

The two clauses

Section 196(1)(a) and (b): promotion of disharmony, hatred, or ill-will between groups on specified grounds. The provision reaches speech that inflames communal, religious, or regional tensions.
Section 196(1)(c): organising, training, or participating in paramilitary-type activities aimed at specific groups. This addresses group-based militia formations.

Constitutional framework

Section 196 engages Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech directly. The section's constitutional validity has been upheld on the ground of public order (Article 19(2)). The Supreme Court has emphasised that the section applies to speech with actual or likely public order consequences, not to mere criticism or dissent. This treatment parallels the Kedar Nath Singh reading of the sedition offence.

10. Section 197 BNS: Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration

Section 197 BNS (formerly Section 153B IPC)

(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise:

(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; or
(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India; or
(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons; or
(d) makes or publishes false or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India,

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 197 addresses speech that undermines national integration. The specific concerns are:

Imputations that any group cannot bear allegiance to the Constitution or uphold sovereignty.
Assertions that any group should be denied citizenship rights.
Speech creating disharmony about the obligations of any group.
False or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security. This clause is a BNS addition, addressing modern misinformation concerns.

11. Constitutional Framework

Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Sections 196 and 197 restrict this freedom in specific ways. The constitutional analysis focuses on whether the restrictions are reasonable and whether they serve one of the permitted grounds under Article 19(2).

Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions

Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of, among other things: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, and morality. Sections 196 and 197 fall clearly within these grounds. The Supreme Court has upheld these provisions, subject to the constraint that they apply only to speech with actual or likely public order consequences.

Public order and morality

The public order ground is the primary constitutional basis for Chapter XI. The state's interest in preventing collective violence, communal disturbance, and speech that inflames such disturbance is one of the classical justifications for criminal law regulation. The reasonable restriction test is applied to ensure that specific applications of the provisions do not extend beyond this legitimate concern.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202

Discussed above. Framework for Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 BNS). Careful proof of common object required.

📖 Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668

The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 153A IPC (now Section 196 BNS) to a television programme depicting historical events. The Court held that the section applies only to speech that promotes actual disharmony or is likely to disturb public tranquillity. Mere historical or artistic depiction is not enough. Rule: Section 196 requires actual or likely public order consequences.

📖 Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the ingredients of Section 153A IPC. The Court held that the mens rea must be proved: the accused must have intended to promote enmity or must have known that his conduct was likely to do so. Rule: specific mens rea required for Section 196.

📖 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431

The Supreme Court considered Sections 153A and 505 IPC. The Court held that mere words expressing sympathy for a political cause do not constitute promoting enmity. Specific intent to create public disorder is required. Rule: sympathy for cause is not sufficient for Section 196.

📖 Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 153A IPC to television debates involving communally sensitive topics. The Court laid down guidelines for the interpretation of the section in modern media contexts, emphasising the need to distinguish between free debate and inflammatory speech. Rule: modern application of Section 196 in media context.

📖 Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657

The Supreme Court considered the framework for rioting prosecutions. The Court held that both the unlawful assembly and the use of force must be established, and that constructive liability under Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 BNS) requires proof of the common object. Rule: careful proof of the elements of rioting.

📖 Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar, (1964) SC

The Supreme Court considered the ingredients of Section 141 IPC (now Section 189 BNS) unlawful assembly. The Court held that the common object must be common to all members, but need not be pre-planned; it may emerge during the assembly. Rule: common object may emerge during the assembly.

📖 Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 2 SCC 827

The Supreme Court considered the application of constructive liability in a case involving a group killing. The Court held that where the common object was to cause hurt, and a member of the assembly killed the victim, other members would be liable only if the killing was in prosecution of the common object or was known to be likely. Rule: careful examination of the connection between the specific offence and the common object.

📖 Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677

The Supreme Court considered the framework for identifying members of an unlawful assembly. The Court held that identification must be established for each member individually; presence at the scene alone is not enough. Rule: individual proof required for each accused member.

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

The Supreme Court considered the interaction between Sections 141, 146, 148, and 149 IPC (now Sections 189, 191, 190 BNS). The Court elaborated the four-provision framework and the specific applications. Rule: coherent interpretation of the four provisions.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202. Constructive liability framework.
Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668. Section 153A requires actual or likely public order consequences.
Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1. Specific mens rea for Section 153A.
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431. Sympathy is not sufficient.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1. Modern application in media context.
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657. Framework for rioting.
Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar, (1964) SC. Common object may emerge during assembly.
Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 2 SCC 827. Careful examination of connection to common object.
Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677. Individual identification required.
Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 4 SCC 75. Coherent interpretation of the four provisions.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214. Mere slogans not sufficient for public order offences.
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1. Application of Section 153A in political speech.
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477. Hate speech and Section 153A.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Digital speech restrictions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XI of the BNS?

Chapter XI of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains nine provisions on offences against public tranquillity (Sections 189 to 197). The chapter addresses unlawful assembly (Section 189), constructive liability (Section 190), rioting (Section 191), provoking riot (Section 192), landowner liability (Section 193), affray (Section 194), assault on public servant suppressing riot (Section 195), promoting enmity between groups (Section 196), and imputations prejudicial to national integration (Section 197). Together the provisions form the criminal law's response to collective disturbances of public order.

What is unlawful assembly under Section 189 BNS?

Section 189 BNS defines unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with any of five common objects: (a) overawing government or public servants; (b) resisting execution of law; (c) committing mischief, criminal trespass, or other offence; (d) using force to take property or interfere with rights; or (e) using force to compel or restrain lawful conduct. Being a member of an unlawful assembly is punishable with up to six months, or fine, or both. The Explanation provides that an assembly which was lawful at the beginning may become unlawful subsequently.

What is Section 190 BNS on constructive liability?

Section 190 BNS (formerly Section 149 IPC) provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, or such as members knew was likely to be committed, every member is guilty of that offence. This dramatically expands criminal liability, ensuring that mob members cannot escape by arguing they personally did not commit the specific act. The classical Masalti v State of UP framework requires careful proof of the common object and its connection to the specific offence.

What is Section 196 BNS?

Section 196 BNS (formerly Section 153A IPC) punishes promoting enmity between different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. The section covers: (a) speech promoting disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will on specified grounds; (b) acts prejudicial to harmony that disturb public tranquillity; and (c) organising paramilitary training aimed at specific groups. Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. Where committed in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies: up to five years and fine. The section applies only to speech with actual or likely public order consequences.

What is Section 197 BNS?

Section 197 BNS addresses imputations prejudicial to national integration. It covers: (a) imputations that any group cannot bear allegiance to the Constitution; (b) assertions that any group should be denied citizenship rights; (c) speech about group obligations that creates disharmony; and (d) false or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security. The last clause is a BNS addition addressing modern misinformation concerns. Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both (up to five years and fine in places of worship or during religious ceremonies).

What is affray under Section 194 BNS?

Section 194 BNS defines affray as the fighting of two or more persons in a public place that disturbs the public peace. Three ingredients: (i) two or more persons fighting; (ii) in a public place; and (iii) disturbing the public peace. Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Affray is treated less severely than rioting because it typically involves smaller numbers and less severe conduct. Unlike rioting, affray does not require an unlawful assembly.

Public Tranquillity Chapter XI BNS