Any disagreement or argument with a judge's decision counts as an offense under this section.

Courts require the insult or interruption to be intentional and directed at disrupting the proceeding — merely disagreeing with a ruling or making respectful legal arguments does not qualify.

This section applies to insults against any government employee.

It specifically applies to a public servant who is sitting in a judicial proceeding, such as a judge or magistrate, not government officials in general contexts.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 228

repealed

Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.§

Why this exists

This provision was part of the original Indian Penal Code of 1860, drafted under British colonial administration influenced by Thomas Macaulay's legal commission. It aims to protect the dignity and smooth functioning of judicial proceedings by deterring behavior that disrespects or disrupts courts, ensuring that judges and similar officials can conduct hearings without deliberate interference or insult from parties, spectators, or others present.

How courts read it

Courts have generally held that the insult or interruption must be intentional and must occur while the public servant is actually sitting in a judicial proceeding — meaning courts require clear proof of deliberate conduct, not mere rudeness or unintentional disturbance. Judicial interpretation has also clarified that 'public servant' here covers judges, magistrates, and quasi-judicial officers performing judicial functions, not all government officials generally.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Any disagreement or argument with a judge's decision counts as an offense under this section.
Fact: Courts require the insult or interruption to be intentional and directed at disrupting the proceeding — merely disagreeing with a ruling or making respectful legal arguments does not qualify.
Myth: This section applies to insults against any government employee.
Fact: It specifically applies to a public servant who is sitting in a judicial proceeding, such as a judge or magistrate, not government officials in general contexts.