IPC Section 228 - Intentional Insult Or Interruption To Public Servant Sitting In Judicial Proceeding

The courtroom is a space where justice is sought and delivered, and maintaining its dignity is essential for the rule of law. Public servants, especially judges, play a crucial role in ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and respectfully. However, there are instances when the decorum of the court is challenged by individuals who intentionally disrupt or insult those in authority. Such behavior not only undermines the judicial process but also threatens the very foundation of our legal system. This blog explores the implications of insulting or interrupting public servants in judicial proceedings and the importance of upholding respect within the courtroom.

Legal Provision Of Section 228 IPC

Section 228- 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.

IPC Section 228: Explained In Simple Terms

Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) provides the punishment for insulting or obstructing a public servant while engaged in any official duty about any Court or other judicial authority.

It provides:

• If someone intentionally insults or obstructs a public servant (like a judge) who is performing his duty as such a public servant, in any Court,
• That person can be punished with the punishment of:
  • Simple imprisonment up to 6 months;
  • Fine up to Rs. 1000;
  • Or both

This Section is incorporated to maintain dignity and discipline in Court or legal proceedings.

Here is an example of a scenario that would fall under Section 228:

Consider a Court where the presiding judge is a public servant. A member of the public attending the hearing deliberately starts shouting insults at the presiding judge so that he cannot carry out the proceedings in an orderly manner and shows disrespect towards the Court. That individual can be charged under Section 228 of the Code.

Key Terms in IPC Section 228

Key terms in Section 228 of the Code are:

• With intent to insult: Act in a manner which disrespects a public servant.
• Interruption: Any action that obstructs a judicial process or proceeding.
• Public Servant: An officer engaged in discharging his duties in a public capacity, such as judges, magistrates, and other judicial officers performing their duties.
• Judicial Proceedings: It is any legal procedure in which the public servant is involved in providing justice, such as trials, hearings and other Court procedures.
• Simple Imprisonment: Unlike rigorous imprisonment, it does not have any mandatory labour.

Key Details:

Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Emperor vs. Chhaganlal Ishwardas Shah (1933)

The assessor, Chhaganlal Ishwardas Shah, appeared before the Court wearing a pheran, cap and scarf. The Sessions Judge held that his dress was improper and fined Rs. 3. According to the opinion of the judge, assessors ought to wear coats.

The High Court has to consider the question whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass an order of fine imposed in the facts of this case. It was pointed out that there are no rules as to dress regulations that should be worn by assessors. Shah was asserting that he was wearing his best which he had worn on earlier occasions as an assessor and on ceremonial occasions. The Court found no reason to doubt his statement.

The Government Pleader argued that the fine was justified under Section 228 of the Code and Section 480 Criminal Procedure Code. The Court however held that these Sections require proof that the assessor intended to insult the Court. In this case, Shah maintained that he was dressed in his best attire, so intent to insult the Court could not be ascertained.

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pranlal Shankerlal Thakkar (1965)

In this case, the Court held that for an offence to take place under Section 228 of the Code, certain conditions must be satisfied. These are:

• Intention: The insult or disruption to the public official must have been intentional. The Court said, “the fact that the Court feels insulted is no reason for holding that any insult was intended.” The accused must have known that the Court was doing judicial work and deliberately attempted to insult or interrupt that work.
• Insult or Interruption: There should be an act of insult or interruption to the public servant in the exercise of judicial functions.
• Judicial Proceeding: At the time of the offence, the public servant must be sitting and acting in a judicial proceeding. Presence in a Courtroom or chambers off duty is not “sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding”.

According to the Court, merely because a magistrate or public officer is occupying a retiring room or having a private conversation, he cannot be said to be “sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding.”

Sahasrangshu Kanti Acharyya vs. The State (1967)

In this case, the Court examined the application and interpretation of Section 228 of the Code. The Court held the following:

• Intentional Insult or Interruption Required: The Court held that Section 228 of the Code requires that the insult or interruption have to be intentional. Merely feeling insulted is not enough to proof of this offence.
• Objective and Subjective Elements: According to the Court, Section 228 of the Code consists of both objective and subjective elements. Objective element means the act consisting of actual insult or interruption. The subjective element is related to the intent of the offender to commit the offence.
• Context of Judicial Proceedings: The Court elucidated further that the offence under Section 228 of the Code must take place within the context of judicial proceedings. That is, while at the time of insult or causing interruption to the public servant, the public servant must be performing judicial functions.
• Section 228 IPC vs. Contempt of Courts Act: The Court observed that contempt of Court is covered under either the Contempt of Courts Act or Section 228 of the Code. However, Section 228 specifically applies to contempt committed against a public servant during a judicial proceeding.
• Sensitivity of Judicial Officers: While holding judicial officers to maintain the dignity of Courts, the Court cautioned against being “too sensitive.”

In this particular case, the Court opined that the acts done by the accused who wore sunglasses and did not sit in the dock, were not intentionally insulting or interrupting the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Thus, the Court ruled that such acts did not meet up with the requisites of Section 228 of the Code.

Shrichand vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1991)

In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the right to free legal assistance at the cost of State is not available for the offences under Section 228 of the Code. The reason of the Court was that such a right is available with limitation that “the offence charged against the accused must be such that on conviction it would result in a sentence of imprisonment.” Since under Section 228 of the Code, the imprisonment is provided only on non-payment of the fine, the threshold does not meet. Essentially the Court determined that the right to free legal assistance applies only where the offence itself carries a potential prison sentence and not when the imprisonment is merely a consequence in case of failing to pay the fine.

P.C. Jose vs. Nandakumar (1993)

The finding of the Court in this case was that the actions of the petitioner did fall within the ambit of an offence under Section 228 of the Code. The petitioner had refused to shift from a seat when asked by the Munsiff (judge). It was considered to be an intentional insult to the aforesaid judicial functionary while the judicial proceeding was going on.

In that regard, the Court declared that though there is no special statute granting advocates preferential sitting, certain rules of practice and decorum have to be met in a Court. That includes recognising the special status of advocates as “officers of the Court” and to uphold the dignity of proceedings in Court. The Court emphasised that a Courtroom demands discipline and formality for proper administration of justice.

Ram Vishal, In Re (1996)

In this case, it was held that the offence of contempt committed by the accused came squarely within the meaning of Section 228 of the Code, because at the time when the acts were committed, the case was still before the Court.

The reasoning of the Court is based on the fact that Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires that in dealing with contempt punishable as offences under the Code, the Court must refer back to the Code. The reason is that the power of the High Court to punish contempt of Subordinate Courts is restricted by the provision to Section 10 which makes it very clear that a High Court cannot take cognizance of contempt in subordinate Courts if such contempt is punishable under the Code.

Since the contumacious conduct of the accused, i.e., insulting the Court comes under Section 228 of the Code, the Court had no alternative but to send the case to the lower Court for appropriate action as per the provisions of Section 229 of the Code. The Court held that the lower Court possessed the jurisdiction to deal with the contempt as it happened while the matter was still pending before the Court.

S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs. District Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu & Ors. (2009)

In this case, the Court examined Section 228 of the Code which provides for intentional insult to interruption of a public servant engaged in judicial proceedings. The Court noted that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates that in the cases covered by Section 228 dealing with proceedings in Court, the Court must itself file the complaint into writing through an officer empowered to do so to initiate the prosecution.

FAQ’s Related to IPC Section 228

How does IPC Section 228 protect public servants?

Under Section 228 of the Code, public servants in judicial proceedings are protected against intentional insult or interruption. It ensures respect towards the judicial process and prevents any disruption from taking place. The law prescribes imprisonment up to six months or a fine of up to 1,000 rupees or both. This serves as a deterrent to improper behaviour, maintaining the authority and dignity of the Court.

What are the potential misuses of IPC Section 228?

The possible misuses of IPC Section 228 would include oppression of legitimate criticism of public servants, considering that words like “insult” and “interruption” have vague meanings. It may be a tool for intimidation of opponents or become a form of harassment in Courts. The law may create a chilling effect on Courtroom participation, deterring open expression. Last but not least, it might be used by authorities to suppress dissent, thereby affecting the balance of fairness in judicial processes.

Are there any defences available under IPC Section 228?

Defenses under IPC Section 228 can be as follows:

1. Absence of intent, making a case that it was an accidental insult or interruption;
2. No Court proceedings at the time when the incident was committed;
3. Respectful exercise of free speech; not amounting to an insult;
4. Any provocation from a public servant which might have evoked the reply;
5. Absence of authority of the Public Servant; and
6. That the accusations were false or a misinterpretation of what actually transpired.

These defences depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.