BACK TO SECTIONS(2017) 10 SCC 1
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 358
Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace
Replaces colonial-era: IPC 504
BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableAny Magistrate
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 504 to BNS 358.
2
Intentional insult requirement preserved — accidental or reckless offence insufficient.
3
Knowledge of likely breach of peace preserved as alternative to intent.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
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.
Legal Commentary
Section 358 (corresponding to IPC 504) addresses intentional insults designed to provoke the victim into violence or criminal behaviour. It punishes the provoker, not the person provoked. The rationale is that someone who deliberately insults another person in a way calculated to cause them to lose self-control and commit a breach of peace is as morally responsible as the person who ultimately acts. The essential elements are: (1) an intentional insult, (2) which gives provocation, (3) with intent or knowledge that it will likely cause the victim to breach the peace or commit an offence. The provision is limited to insults designed to provoke the specific recipient — it does not cover general offensive speech. Courts have emphasised the word 'intentional' — accidental or thoughtless offence does not suffice. Section 358 is commonly used in neighbourhood disputes, caste-related insults designed to provoke fights, and situations where deliberately humiliating language is used at public meetings to incite disorder. It is distinct from hate speech provisions (BNS 196) which target group-based inflammatory speech.
Landmark Precedents
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
RELEVANCE
Nine-judge bench recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 — BNS provisions on voyeurism and digital offences directly operationalise this constitutional right.
Case Simulations
"A person who publicly mocks a rival's deceased parent at their wedding reception, knowing the rival has a violent temper — BNS 358 if a fight ensues."
"Someone who uses a casteist slur against a person at a village well, knowing the community context makes violence highly likely — intentional insult under BNS 358."
"A political activist who shouts humiliating slogans targeting a specific opponent outside their house at midnight to provoke them — BNS 358."
Expert Insights
Both potentially. You may be liable for assault/hurt under BNS 115. The person who used the slur may be liable under BNS 358 if they knew the insult was likely to provoke violence. The law recognises the provocation even while requiring restraint.
If the online insult is directed at a specific person with intent or knowledge that it will provoke them to breach the peace or commit an offence, yes. General offensive commentary not directed at creating a specific violent provocation is better addressed under other provisions.