Propaganda Crimes Under Bns
What Are Propaganda Crimes?
Propaganda crimes involve acts of spreading ideas, information, or materials intended to incite violence, hatred, or cause harm to others. Under Offences Against Human Body (BNS), propaganda that results in bodily harm, public disorder, or incitement to violence is punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These offences do not necessarily involve physical contact but relate to verbal, written, or symbolic communication aimed at provoking bodily harm or danger to life.
Relevant Sections Under IPC
Section 153A IPC: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
Section 505 IPC: Statements conducing to public mischief.
Section 506 IPC: Criminal intimidation.
Section 295A IPC: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 124A IPC: Sedition (propaganda against the government).
Section 302 IPC: Murder (where propaganda incites murder).
Section 34 IPC: Common intention, often applies where propaganda leads to collective violence.
How Propaganda Crimes Tie into Offences Against Human Body
When propaganda incites violence, bodily harm, or murder, it becomes a predicate for offences against human body. For example, hate speech inciting communal violence may lead to grievous hurt or death, attracting serious criminal liability.
Important Case Laws on Propaganda Crimes Under BNS
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
Facts:
The appellant was charged under Section 124A (sedition) for speeches allegedly inciting violence against the government.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that only speech that incites violence or public disorder amounts to sedition, protecting freedom of speech but limiting dangerous propaganda.
Significance:
Set limits on propaganda and emphasized the link between incitement and bodily harm/public safety.
2. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957) AIR 621
Facts:
The accused was charged under Section 295A IPC for publishing material hurting religious sentiments.
Judgment:
Court held that deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings is a punishable offence under Section 295A.
Significance:
Confirmed criminal liability for propaganda that incites communal hatred leading to bodily harm.
3. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 8 SCC 329
Facts:
The petitioner challenged his conviction under Section 153A for distributing leaflets that promoted enmity.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified the threshold for Section 153A — the propaganda must have clear tendency to promote enmity and disturb public tranquility.
Significance:
Clarified parameters of propaganda crimes leading to bodily offences.
4. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
Facts:
In this case, propaganda in the form of speeches and writings incited violence resulting in grievous hurt and murder.
Judgment:
The Court held that such propaganda acts form part of a criminal conspiracy under Section 34 and attract liability for resulting bodily harm.
Significance:
Illustrated how propaganda underlies serious bodily offences through incitement.
5. Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 309
Facts:
Accused used propaganda to mobilize mobs leading to attacks causing bodily injury.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that those propagating violence are liable under Sections 153A, 505, and for the bodily harm caused.
Significance:
Emphasized accountability for those who propagate violence causing bodily offences.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar | Limits of sedition and incitement | Only incitement to violence punishable | Defined scope of propaganda crimes |
| Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP | Propaganda outraging religious feelings | Malicious intent is necessary for offence | Upheld Section 295A offences |
| Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam | Promoting enmity under Section 153A | Propaganda must have clear tendency | Set threshold for criminal liability |
| Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab | Propaganda inciting violence and bodily harm | Propaganda as part of conspiracy | Liability for resultant bodily offences |
| Prakash Singh Badal v. Punjab | Propaganda mobilizing mobs causing injuries | Propagators liable for incited violence | Enforced accountability under multiple sections |
Additional Notes:
Propaganda that incites violence can attract both specific propaganda-related offences and serious offences against the human body.
Courts carefully distinguish free speech from incitement.
The intent and direct link to bodily harm are key in prosecuting propaganda crimes under BNS.
These cases reinforce that words and materials can cause real bodily harm when used as tools of incitement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments