Obstruction Of Public Servant In Duty
⚖️ Legal Provision – Section 186 IPC
Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with:
"Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions"
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
🔍 Essential Ingredients of Section 186 IPC
To establish the offence under Section 186, the following must be proved:
The person obstructed must be a "public servant".
The public servant must be acting in discharge of his public functions.
There must be voluntary obstruction by the accused.
The obstruction must be intentional.
🔨 Nature of the Offence
Cognizable: No
Bailable: Yes
Triable By: Any Magistrate
Punishment: Up to 3 months or fine up to ₹500 or both
📚 Important Case Laws on Obstruction of Public Servant (Section 186 IPC)
1. R. v. Biswanath Dey (1866) 6 WR Cr 57
Facts:
The accused was found preventing a police officer from arresting a criminal. He held the criminal's hand to stop the police from taking him into custody.
Held:
The court held that obstructing a public servant, even momentarily, amounts to an offence under Section 186 IPC. The intent to cause obstruction was evident, and physical interference with a lawful arrest by a police officer is punishable.
Significance:
Any kind of physical or intentional obstruction — even without violence — is sufficient.
2. State of UP v. Abdul Samad, AIR 1962 All 279
Facts:
A person tried to prevent a police officer from carrying out an attachment under a court order by standing at the entrance and refusing entry.
Held:
The Allahabad High Court ruled that any act that delays or prevents a public servant from doing their official duty is obstruction. The offence was complete even if no physical force was used.
Significance:
Non-violent methods like blocking entry or delay can also attract liability under Section 186 IPC.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh, 1996 Cri LJ 2847 (Bom)
Facts:
The accused interfered with a police officer who was managing a crowd during a religious procession. He argued and incited people to defy police instructions.
Held:
The Bombay High Court held that instigating others to disobey or defy lawful orders of a public servant is also obstruction. Verbal interference that disrupts public function qualifies under Section 186.
Significance:
Verbal obstruction and inciting crowd behavior is as serious as physical obstruction.
4. Raj Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2009 (4) JCC 2676 (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
The accused abused and pushed a traffic constable who was trying to issue a challan (traffic ticket).
Held:
The Delhi High Court held that the use of abusive language and minor physical contact while the officer was on duty constituted obstruction. However, the punishment imposed was minimal given the circumstances.
Significance:
Even minor physical altercation or intimidation against a public servant attracts Section 186 IPC.
5. Public Prosecutor v. T. K. Gopalakrishnan, 1963 CrLJ 608 (Ker)
Facts:
A person tried to prevent a municipal officer from demolishing an illegal construction even though he was acting under the direction of the municipal authority.
Held:
The Kerala High Court ruled that public servants acting under lawful authority must not be obstructed, and ignorance of law by the accused is not an excuse.
Significance:
Even if the accused believes the public servant is wrong, taking the law into one’s own hands results in culpability.
6. MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38
Facts:
The issue involved a vendor obstructing the municipal authorities from clearing encroachments on public land.
Held:
Though not a prosecution under Section 186 IPC, the Supreme Court observed the importance of enabling public servants to discharge their duties freely and without intimidation.
Significance:
This case re-emphasized that public functionaries should not be hindered, and the public should seek legal remedies instead of confrontation.
✅ Summary of Legal Position
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Who is protected? | Public servants engaged in official duty |
| Nature of obstruction | Physical, verbal, psychological, or by incitement |
| Voluntariness required? | Yes – Must be intentional |
| Physical force required? | Not necessarily |
| Defence of ignorance? | Not valid |
🔔 Practical Implications
Arguing or interfering with police, municipal officers, election officials, etc., can lead to prosecution under this section.
Citizens should use legal remedies (complaints, writs) rather than obstructing public functionaries.
The section also protects judicial officers, revenue officers, and even school inspectors or election officials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments