Offences Against Public Tranquillity

An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:

1. to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of his lawful power;

2. to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;

3. to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;

4. by means of criminal force or show of criminal force, to take or obtain possession of property, or deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right, or to enforce any right or supposed right;

5. 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.

• Essentials: (1) five or more persons; (2) a common object of the listed kind; (3) the common object must be unlawful, shared by all (or by a number sufficient to make five); (4) it need not be formed in advance; it can form on the spot (Lalji v. State of U.P., 1989).

• Mere presence at the scene is not enough (Masalti v. State of U.P., 1965); active participation or sharing the common object is required, but overt act is not necessary for the liability under s.190.

• Punishments: being a member of an unlawful assembly (IPC 143): up to six months or fine or both; joining armed with deadly weapon (IPC 144): up to two years; joining after being commanded to disperse (IPC 145): up to two years; hiring or engaging persons for the assembly (s.192; IPC 150): same as a member of the assembly; knowingly joining or continuing in an assembly of five or more persons after it has been lawfully commanded to disperse (s.193; IPC 151): up to six months or fine or both; assaulting or obstructing a public servant when suppressing a riot (s.195; IPC 152): up to three years or fine or both.

• Dispersal: the BNSS (successor to CrPC ss.129-132) lays down the procedure for dispersal of unlawful assemblies by civil force, by armed forces, and protection for officers who act in good faith. Magistrate and police officers can order dispersal; the use of force must be the minimum necessary.

• Liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object, or such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. See topic 1 for the comparison with common intention and the cases (Masalti, Lalji, Charan Singh, Yeshwant).

• Definition (s.191(1); IPC s.146): 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.

• Punishment: rioting (s.191(2); IPC 147): up to two years or fine or both; rioting armed with a deadly weapon (s.191(3); IPC 148): up to five years or fine or both; rioting by a person armed with a deadly weapon or members aggravated (s.191(4)-(5)).

• Riot is an unlawful assembly that has used force. An unlawful assembly may exist without any violence; a riot needs force or violence (even slight force, such as pushing, may suffice).

• Liability for offences during the riot: members are liable under s.190 for offences in prosecution of the common object (e.g., murder, mischief by fire).

• Definition: when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.

• Punishment: up to one month, or fine up to ₹1,000 or both (the BNS raised the fine).

• Elements: (1) two or more persons; (2) fighting; (3) in a public place; (4) disturbance of the public peace (the public nature distinguishes affray from an ordinary assault).

• Promoting enmity between different groups (s.196; IPC 153A): words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations or electronic communication that promote or attempt to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community; also acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and organising drills or exercises that involve criminal force. Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both; in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies: up to five years and fine.

• Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration (s.197; IPC 153B): e.g., claims that any class of persons cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution or denying citizens their rights on grounds of religion, etc. Punishment: up to three years or fine or both; in a place of worship: up to five years.

• Cases: Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) (s.153A requires that at least two groups are involved and the intention to promote enmity must be shown; the offence cannot be based on a statement against one community alone); Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) (mens rea and intention to promote enmity are essential; mere publication of a statement is not enough); Ramesh v. Union of India (1988) (Tamil film on Rajiv Gandhi's assassination; test of the reasonable, strong-minded person); Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) (hate speech; asked the Law Commission to study); Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) (hate speech, effect of speech on the targeted group; the Court held speech must be judged by its effect on a reasonable person); Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) (no FIR under 153A and 505 where the Facebook post sought justice and did not promote enmity).

• Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957): the Supreme Court upheld s.295A as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech in the interest of public order, because it punishes only deliberate and malicious acts aimed at outraging religious feelings, not mere insult. Mere criticism or bona fide discussion is outside the section. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) is the leading authority on the distinction between advocacy and incitement.

• Making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report: (a) with intent to cause, or likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty; (b) with intent to cause, or likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; (c) with intent to incite, or likely to incite, any class or community to commit any offence against any other class or community. Punishment: up to three years or fine or both; in a place of worship or at a religious assembly: up to five years and fine. The BNS includes electronic means and false or misleading information that endangers the sovereignty or security of India under s.353 (and related s.152).

• Public nuisance (s.270; IPC s.268): an act or illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage. Punishment (s.292; IPC 290): fine up to ₹1,000 (older: ₹200).

• BNSS conditional order for removal of nuisance (CrPC s.133; BNSS s.152): the Magistrate can issue a conditional order to remove a public nuisance; Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) (Justice Krishna Iyer; the local authority must perform its statutory duty to remove nuisance; lack of funds is no excuse; s.133 is mandatory in effect).

• Orders under BNSS s.163 (CrPC s.144): urgent orders in cases of nuisance or apprehended danger; Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr (1970) (constitutional; reasonable restriction on rights); Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961); Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) (internet shutdown and s.144 orders must be necessary and proportionate, published and subject to judicial review; indefinite orders are impermissible).

• Assembly and protest: Article 19(1)(b) (peaceful assembly without arms); Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) (Jantar Mantar; the Court said protests must be regulated, not banned); Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) (Shaheen Bagh; public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely); Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re (2012) (right to sleep and right to assemble and police action at night); Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of A.P. (2009) (guidelines on compensation for property damage during protests and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984).

• Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant (s.223; IPC 188): if it causes obstruction, annoyance or injury: up to six months; if it causes danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray: up to one year and fine.