This article is written by Gauri Gupta, Second year student at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The word “public tranquillity” relates to the preservation of society’s peace, safety, and harmony. Any act or behaviour that disturbs or disrupts public order and safety is deemed an offence against public calm. These offences are addressed in Chapter VIII, Sections 141–160 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These offences are divided into three categories: unlawful assembly, riots, and affray.
Unlawful Assembly
Section 141 of the IPC defines an Unlawful Assembly as “an assembly of five or more persons who have assembled with a common object that is unlawful.” An unlawful assembly is one whose common goal is to commit a criminal crime, engage in acts that endanger public peace and safety, or threaten to use force or violence against persons or property.
Being a member of an unlawful assembly is punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both. If a person knows that the assembly intends to commit a specific criminal or that the assembly’s acts are likely to create violence or public disturbance, the punishment can be up to three years in jail, a fine, or both.
Riots
Section 146 of the IPC defines a Riot as “an unlawful assembly that engages in violent conduct.” The word “violent behaviour” refers to activities that inflict property damage or risk the lives of humans, such as assaulting an individual or a group of people. Participating in a riot is punishable by up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.
If found guilty of being armed with a lethal weapon during a riot, the punishment can be up to three years in jail, a fine, or both. Furthermore, if a person is killed as a result of the riot, the punishment can be life imprisonment or a period of 10 years or more, depending on the gravity of the act.
Affray
Section 159 of the IPC defines Affray as “an act of public fighting by two or more individuals.” Fighting must take place in a public venue, and the participants must inspire fear or worry among the public. Involvement in an Affray is punishable by imprisonment for up to one month or a fine of up to Rs. 100, or both.
However, if the individuals involved in the Affray are armed with a deadly weapon or cause serious injury to another person, they can face up to six months in prison or a fine of up to Rs. 500, or both.
Section 144
Section 144 of the IPC allows an executive magistrate to issue an order prohibiting the gathering of five or more people in a certain place for a set length of time if there is a possible threat to public safety, peace, or tranquillity. Other limits on travel and activity in the area may also be imposed by the magistrate. This section is frequently utilised to avoid community strife, demonstrations, and other types of public unrest.
A breach of Section 144 can result in up to three years in jail, a fine, or both. However, the installation of Section 144 has been a source of contention, with worries voiced about its potential misuse and abuse by authorities.
Section 144 has been utilised regularly in recent years in India to suppress public meetings and protests. The most famous application of Section 144 was in the state of Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019, following the repeal of Article 370, which provided the state special status. During the 2019-2020 demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the clause was also implemented in the national capital, Delhi.
However, the use of Section 144 has frequently been criticised as arbitrary and violating citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to free assembly and expression. In some cases, the courts have ruled that the enforcement of Section 144 was disproportionate and unreasonable.
Disturbing Religious Assemblies:
The Indian legal system supports citizens’ right to practise and spread their faith. As a result, any act that disrupts a religious assembly is deemed a violation of public calm. Section 296 of the IPC defines the penalty for disrupting a religious assembly as up to one year in jail, a fine, or both.
Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups:
Promoting animosity between various communities in a varied society like India might have major implications. Section 153A of the IPC criminalises inciting hatred between various groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, domicile, language, and so on. The penalty for the offence may be up to three years in prison, a fine, or both.
Promoting animosity between various groups is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Offences Relating to Elections:
Elections are a necessary component of every democracy. Any act that disrupts the smooth running of elections is deemed a violation of public calm. The offence of undue influence at elections is punishable under Section 171C of the IPC. The penalty for the offence may be up to one year in jail, a fine, or both.
Similarly, Section 171H of the IPC specifies the penalty for election bribery. The penalty for the offence may be up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.
The offence of impersonating at elections is punishable under Section 171I of the IPC. The penalty for the offence may be up to one year in jail, a fine, or both.
The offence of false statement in connection with an election is punishable under Section 171G of the IPC. The penalty for the offence may be up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.
Conclusion
Offenses against public tranquillity are severe offences that endanger society’s peace and stability. These offences not only destroy public order, but also instil dread and worry among residents. Rioting, unlawful assembly, fostering animosity between various groups, and spreading false stories are all offences covered by the Indian Penal Code.
However, the enforcement of these provisions has frequently been problematic, with concerns raised about the authorities’ misuse and abuse of them. The police and the judiciary must guarantee that these measures are utilised wisely and in accordance with natural justice and human rights standards.
It is also critical to raise public knowledge about the repercussions of offences against public calm and the need of sustaining social peace and harmony. The government should take steps to foster communal cohesion and address the underlying causes of communal tensions and disputes.
Overall, the prevention and punishment of public tranquillity offences necessitate a collaborative effort from all stakeholders, including the government, law enforcement agencies, civil society groups, and the general people. Only then can we assure that everyone lives in a secure, peaceful, and harmonious society.
References:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.
- Constitution of India..
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224.
- Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
- Babu Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1995) 4 SCC 167.
- Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1.
- Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019)
- Indian Express. “J&K: Section 144 lifted from most areas; internet remains suspended in valley.” August 16, 2019.: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jk-section-144-lifted-from-most-areas-internet-remains-suspended-in-valley-5908413/.
- The Wire. “Section 144, Explained: The Law that is Being Used to Stifle Protests Across India.” December 20, 2019.: https://thewire.in/rights/section-144-law-being-used-stifle-protests-across-india.
- The Quint. “What is Section 144? Explained in Simple Terms.” January 8, 2020.: https://www.thequint.com/news/india/what-is-section-144-explained-in-simple-terms.
- Amnesty International India. “India: Authorities must respect right to peaceful protest.” December 20, 2019.: https://www.amnesty.org.in/news-update/india-authorities-must-respect-right-to-peaceful-protest/.
- The Times of India. “Section 144 Imposed Across India After CAA Protests Turn Violent.” December 19, 2019. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/section-144-imposed-across-india-after-caa-protests-turn-violent/articleshow/72822117.cms.