228 vs 264
How the law punishes insults and interruptions in the courtroom, featuring updated financial penalties.
What Changed?
Renumbered IPC 228 to BNS 264.
Five-fold increase in the maximum fine from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Maintains the summary triability by the court where the offence occurs.
Verdict
"Reinforces the authority of the judiciary and the sanctity of judicial proceedings."
Detailed Analysis
228
Section Data Pending
264
Section Data Pending
Legal Implications
Practical Scenarios
"Persistently shouting over the judge to prevent a hearing from continuing (BNS 264)."
"Hurling abuses at a witness or the judge during testimony (BNS 264)."
Expert Q&A
Is this different from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
Yes. BNS 264 is a specific criminal provision for contempt in the face of the court. The 1971 Act is broader and covers civil contempt (disobeying orders) and criminal contempt (scandalising the court from outside).
What is the BNS equivalent of IPC 228?
IPC Section 228 (Contempt of Court — In-Court) → BNS Section 264. Same 6-month maximum and non-cognizable status preserved.
How is IPC 228/BNS 264 different from the Contempt of Courts Act 1971?
IPC 228/BNS 264 specifically covers in-court insults or interruptions to a judge — summarily triable by the court itself. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has broader scope: it also covers 'scandalising the court' (out-of-court attacks on judicial dignity) and civil contempt (wilful disobedience of court orders).
Is IPC 228/BNS 264 bailable?
Yes — despite its importance in maintaining court dignity, Section 228/BNS 264 is Bailable and Non-Cognizable. The Non-Cognizable status means police cannot arrest without a Magistrate's warrant — but the affected court itself can summarily try the offender.
Deepen Your Legal Knowledge
Explore more side-by-side comparisons of the Indian Law reforms 2024. Detailed analysis for lawyers, students, and legal practitioners.
Explore All Comparisons