IPC 295A in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

This provision punishes deliberate and malicious insults to religion or religious beliefs. Its defining feature is the mental element: the section requires a deliberate and malicious intention, and the absence of that intention is what defeats most prosecutions under it. Under the BNS it sits at Section 299.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused acted with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India
• the act consisted of words spoken or written, signs, visible representations, electronic means or otherwise
• the act insulted or attempted to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class

What changed from the IPC

The offence and its punishment are carried over — up to three years, or a fine, or both. As with the neighbouring provisions on group enmity, the BNS added electronic means expressly to the list of ways the offence can be committed, which reflects where the great majority of these prosecutions now originate. The demanding mental element, requiring that the act be both deliberate and malicious, is retained unchanged, and the substantial body of case law interpreting it continues to apply.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The provision has to be separated from those around it. Section 196, replacing IPC 153A, concerns promoting enmity between groups and requires a likelihood of disturbing public tranquillity, which this section does not. Section 302, replacing IPC 298, punishes uttering words with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of a person and carries a much lower punishment. Sections 298 and 300, replacing IPC 295 and 297, concern injuring or defiling a place of worship and trespassing on burial places. The distinguishing feature of Section 299 is that the target is the religion or religious beliefs of a class, and the requirement is deliberate and malicious intention rather than mere offence caused.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and non-bailable. As with the group-enmity provision, a prosecution requires the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, and its absence bars the proceedings. Because these cases now overwhelmingly arise from online content, investigations centre on establishing authorship and on the forensic handling of electronic material, and complaints are frequently filed in multiple jurisdictions arising from the same publication, which raises questions about where the case can properly proceed.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

Intention is the central issue and it is established or displaced by context. The complete material has to be read as a whole, since prosecutions in this area very frequently rest on extracts stripped of their setting. The nature of the publication — whether it was academic, satirical, artistic, journalistic or polemical — and the audience for which it was intended both bear on whether malice can be inferred. Where the material is electronic, authorship must be established through account records, posting logs and device forensics, subject to the certification requirements for electronic evidence. Conduct after publication, including any clarification, withdrawal or apology, is relevant to intention. Evidence of the accused's broader body of work is frequently produced to show the absence of malicious purpose.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years, or a fine, or both. In practice the more significant consequences in this area are frequently the pendency of multiple proceedings and the restrictions attached to bail rather than the eventual sentence.

Defences that commonly apply

The absence of sanction is the first point to check and is a complete answer where it is missing. On the substance, the defence is directed at the mental element: that the act was not done with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, but was academic, historical, artistic, satirical or critical in purpose. Reading the complete material in context is the practical form this takes. Where multiple FIRs arise from a single publication across different states, seeking their consolidation is an established remedy and prevents the same material being litigated repeatedly. Where authorship of online material is uncertain, the technical challenges applicable to electronic evidence are available.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The case begins with an FIR, frequently one of several filed in different places on the same material. The sanction requirement and, where multiple FIRs exist, applications for their consolidation, dominate the early stages and often take longer than the investigation itself. Seizure and forensic examination of devices follows where the material is electronic. A charge sheet is filed and trial proceeds. Petitions to quash on the ground that the material discloses no deliberate and malicious intention are the principal early remedy.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve the complete material as published, together with everything establishing its context — the publication it appeared in, the audience, the surrounding text, the thread. Where electronic, preserve account and posting records and the original device, and note the certification requirements. Obtain the sanction order or establish its absence at the outset. Keep any clarification, correction, withdrawal or apology issued, with its date, since conduct after publication bears on intention. Where the work forms part of a wider body of writing, art or commentary, assemble it, as it is commonly produced to show the absence of malicious purpose. Where multiple FIRs exist, keep a complete list with the details of each.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The mental element is where the case is won or lost. The section is not satisfied by showing that religious feelings were in fact hurt; it requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage them. Material showing what was actually intended — the context of the publication, the audience it was made for, any clarification or apology, the body of the accused's other work — bears directly on that. Where multiple FIRs have been registered across states on the same publication, consolidating them is a recognised remedy and should be considered early.

Common misunderstandings

"Hurting religious feelings is enough."
It is not. The section requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. Offence actually caused, without that intention, does not complete the offence.

"Any criticism of a religion is covered."
Courts have consistently held that academic, historical or critical discussion, and even sharp criticism, falls outside the section where the deliberate and malicious intention is absent.

"Online content was not covered before."
It was prosecuted under the old section, and BNS 299 now names electronic means expressly.

"Anyone can start a prosecution."
A prosecution requires the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, and its absence is a complete bar.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 299 — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
• BNS 196 — Promoting enmity between groups (IPC 153A)
• BNS 302 — Uttering words to wound religious feelings (IPC 298)
• BNS 298 — Injuring or defiling a place of worship (IPC 295)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.