Definition
Intentional insult causing provocation or outraging another's religion.
Criminal intentional insult that provokes a person to break the public peace, or insulting or outraging the religious feelings of a class of persons.
Statutory Definition
BNS 2023, Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke, formerly IPC Section 504); BNS Section 299 (outraging religious feelings, formerly IPC Section 295A).
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'insultare' (to jump upon, assault, exult over — from 'in', upon, and 'saltare', to jump). An 'insult' is originally a physical assault — jumping upon a person. The meaning shifted over centuries from physical assault to verbal or gestural offence — language or acts that 'jump upon' a person's dignity and respect. The legal uses cover both the dignity affront and the religious sentiment variant.
Full Legal Analysis
In Indian criminal law, 'insult' is a legal concept that covers two distinct offences: (1) Intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace — Section 352 BNS (formerly Section 504 IPC): whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and (2) Outraging religious feelings — Section 299 BNS (formerly Section 295A IPC): deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Section 352 BNS (Intentional Insult): the key elements are: (a) intentional insult — the accused intentionally insults the complainant (by words, gestures, acts); (b) the insult is accompanied by provocation — the insult is of such nature as to provoke the victim; and (c) the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the provocation would cause breach of public peace or commission of another offence. The insult must have the provocation of a breach of peace as its likely consequence — an insult that merely hurts feelings without likely provoking public disorder is not covered by Section 352 BNS.
The Supreme Court quashed a complaint filed against cricketer M.S. Dhoni under Section 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS) for appearing in a magazine photograph wearing an outfit that allegedly portrayed him as a Hindu deity. The Court held that for Section 295A, the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings is essential — it is not sufficient that a complainant claims their religious feelings were hurt. The intent must be deliberate and malicious — aimed specifically at insulting the religion. The Court emphasised that Section 295A applies only to the most aggravated form of religious insult — not to any act that someone perceives as offensive to their religion.
Insult vs defamation: defamation (Section 356 BNS) is a false statement that harms a person's reputation — it targets their social standing. Insult (Section 352 BNS) targets provocation to breach public peace. Outraging religious feelings (Section 299 BNS) is specifically about religious sentiment. A statement that is both insulting and defamatory may be charged under both sections simultaneously.
For advocates, insult matters arise in: (1) political speech — where a speech is alleged to have intentionally insulted and provoked a group; (2) hate speech — where a speech or publication targets a religious/caste group; (3) quashing petitions — challenging complaints filed under Section 295A as an abuse of process (the Dhoni principle); and (4) social media cases — where a post or comment is alleged to outrage religious sentiments, a common scenario in modern digital litigation.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 2023
"Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Mahendra Singh Dhoni: Section 299 BNS requires deliberate malicious intent to outrage — not mere perceived offence; provocation to breach public peace element in Section 352; insult vs defamation; social media hate speech
