Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 223
Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
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,—
(a) 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 and five hundred rupees, or with both;
(b) and where such disobedience causes or tends 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. Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration. An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Why this exists
This provision descends from Section 188 of the old Indian Penal Code, itself rooted in colonial-era policing needs to enforce public order directives — such as curfews, crowd control orders, or restrictions on processions — issued by magistrates and other empowered officials. The law exists to give real teeth to such administrative orders (like those issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, formerly Section 144 CrPC) so that public safety measures are not ignored without consequence, while requiring that the person actually knew about the order before being punished.
How courts read it
Courts have long linked this offence to the constitutional validity of prohibitory orders (like curfews or bans on assemblies) issued by magistrates. In Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970), the Supreme Court examined the scope of such prohibitory powers and the penal consequence of disobeying them, affirming that these powers must be exercised reasonably and are subject to judicial scrutiny, while the penal provision (then Section 188 IPC) ensures compliance. Courts have also clarified that the prosecution must show the accused knew of the order — mere disobedience without proof of knowledge is not enough.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: You can be punished under this law even if you never knew about the order.
Fact: The law specifically requires that you 'knew' about the order before disobeying it — ignorance of an order you had no way of knowing about is not punishable under this section. - Myth: This section only applies to political protests or curfews.
Fact: It applies broadly to any lawful order by an empowered public servant, including those about handling property, business restrictions, or safety measures — not just protests. - Myth: You must intend to cause harm to be guilty.
Fact: The Explanation makes clear that intent to cause harm is not required — it's enough that the disobedience actually causes or is likely to cause harm.