BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1962 SC 955(2005) 11 SCC 600
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableCourt of Session
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 121–123 to BNS 114.
2
Death or life imprisonment preserved — no minimum sentence below this.
3
Conspiracy and preparation to wage war remain standalone offences.
4
Read with UAPA for comprehensive counter-insurgency legal framework.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Legal Commentary
Section 114 is the BNS's foundational provision protecting state sovereignty — it criminalises the most extreme form of political violence: waging war against the Republic of India itself. The provision captures three scenarios: actually waging war (armed insurrection, civil war, armed secession attempts), attempting to wage war, and abetting the waging of war. Death or life imprisonment is mandatory — there is no lesser sentence available. Related provisions in the same cluster criminalise: conspiracy to wage war (carrying up to life imprisonment), collecting arms, ammunition, or men with intent to wage war, and concealing a design to wage war with the knowledge and failure to report it. 'Waging war' has been interpreted broadly by courts to include organised armed resistance to state authority — not every act of violence against the state, but sustained, armed organised opposition aimed at overthrowing or compelling the government. The distinction between waging war (Section 114) and terrorism (Section 113) and sedition (Section 152) matters: waging war requires an armed, organised challenge to state authority; terrorism focuses on means (explosives, mass casualties) and intent to terrorise; sedition focuses on speech that excites disaffection. In practice, insurgencies in Kashmir, the Northeast, and historically the Naxalite-Maoist conflict in central India have been prosecuted partly under waging war provisions.
Landmark Precedents
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
RELEVANCE
While primarily about sedition, the Supreme Court discussed the distinction between speech that criticises the government (protected) and organised armed violence aimed at overthrowing it (covered by the waging war provisions).
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case) (2005)
RELEVANCE
The Parliament attack was charged partly as waging war against the Government of India — the Supreme Court affirmed convictions under IPC 121, holding that an armed attack on Parliament itself constituted waging war against the Indian state.
Case Simulations
"An armed insurgent group that attacks military posts, sets up parallel administration in forest areas, and declares opposition to the Indian constitution — waging war under BNS 114."
"The December 2001 Parliament attack — charged as waging war against the Government of India."
"A person who supplies arms and finances to an insurgent group knowing they intend to wage war — abetment of waging war under BNS 114 read with Section 47."
Expert Insights
Courts have held that organised armed attacks on state forces, particularly where the attackers are part of an armed movement aimed at overthrowing constitutional authority, can constitute waging war. The Maoist (Naxalite) insurgency cases have been prosecuted under both UAPA and waging war provisions. The key is whether the act is part of an organised armed challenge to state authority.
No specific number is required — waging war is assessed by the nature and organisation of the conduct, not the headcount. However, courts have consistently required that the conduct be organised, armed, and directed at the overthrow or coercion of the state, not merely a violent individual act.