Any mistake or delay by a government official counts as a crime under this section.

Courts require proof that the official knowingly disobeyed a specific legal direction and either intended harm or knew harm was likely — honest mistakes or negligence alone don't qualify.

This section covers all forms of official misconduct.

It specifically targets disobedience of a legal direction about how to conduct oneself as a public servant, not general corruption or abuse of power, which are covered by other laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 166

repealed

Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person

Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.§

Why this exists

This provision was part of the original Indian Penal Code drafted in 1860 under British colonial rule, largely shaped by Thomas Macaulay's drafting committee. It reflects a broader concern in the IPC's chapter on public servants: officials wield power over citizens, and that power must be used according to law, not misused to harm people. The section targets situations where an official knows the correct legal procedure but deliberately departs from it, and either wants to cause injury or knows injury is a likely result.

How courts read it

Courts have held that mere disobedience of a rule is not enough; there must be 'knowing' disobedience plus either intent to cause injury or knowledge that injury is likely. Indian courts have generally required clear proof of both the specific legal direction violated and the mental element (mens rea), making convictions under this section relatively rare compared to related offenses. Courts have also distinguished this provision from Section 21 (definition of 'public servant') and from disciplinary or departmental proceedings, noting that criminal liability under Section 166 requires more than an honest mistake or a bona fide error in judgment.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Any mistake or delay by a government official counts as a crime under this section.
Fact: Courts require proof that the official knowingly disobeyed a specific legal direction and either intended harm or knew harm was likely — honest mistakes or negligence alone don't qualify.
Myth: This section covers all forms of official misconduct.
Fact: It specifically targets disobedience of a legal direction about how to conduct oneself as a public servant, not general corruption or abuse of power, which are covered by other laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act.