What is IPC Section 228?
IPC Section 228 sits in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, "Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice," toward the end of the cluster addressing offences by public servants in judicial proceedings, and offences against the proper conduct of such proceedings (Sections 219–229). Where earlier sections in this cluster address misconduct by the judicial officer themselves, Section 228 flips the focus, addressing misconduct directed at that officer by litigants, witnesses, or members of the public attending or participating in the proceeding.
A notable feature of this section's practical operation is its interaction with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 10 of that Act requires that, in dealing with contempt punishable as an offence under the Code, a court must effectively defer back to the Code — meaning a High Court's power to punish contempt of a subordinate court is restricted where the contumacious conduct is separately punishable under a provision like Section 228, requiring the matter to be handled through the ordinary criminal process rather than the summary contempt jurisdiction.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Section 228 IPC now corresponds to Section 267 of the BNS, which retains the same substantive scope while raising the maximum fine from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 228 IPC
This provision must be read together with Section 229, its immediate neighbour, and with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which restricts a High Court's summary contempt power over subordinate courts where the underlying conduct is separately punishable under a Code provision such as this one. Together, these provisions establish that disruption of judicial proceedings is primarily channelled through this specific offence rather than treated as an open-ended contempt matter.
Punishment Under Section 228
| Punishment | Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine up to ₹1,000, or both |
|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Non-cognizable — police generally require a Magistrate's order to investigate or arrest (cognizable in Andhra Pradesh by state amendment) |
| Bailable / Non-Bailable | Bailable — bail is a matter of right |
| Compoundable | Non-compoundable |
| Triable By | The court in which the offence is committed, subject to the applicable procedural chapter, or, if not committed in a court, any Magistrate |
The requirement of simple (not rigorous) imprisonment, alongside the modest fine ceiling, reflects the comparatively administrative and decorum-focused nature of this offence, distinguishing it from the far more serious offences involving direct violence or obstruction against judicial officers or the administration of justice more broadly.
Key Ingredients / Essential Elements
Intentional insult or interruption
The accused must have intentionally offered an insult, or caused an interruption — a deliberate, willed act, not an accidental disturbance.
Directed at a public servant
The insult or interruption must have been directed at a public servant, such as a judge or magistrate, as defined under Section 21 of the Code.
While sitting at any stage of a judicial proceeding
The public servant must have been sitting at any stage of a genuinely judicial proceeding when the insult or interruption occurred.
What Should You Do — For Complainants and For the Accused
If You (as a Judicial Officer) Faced an Insult or Interruption
- Ensure the incident is properly recorded, including the specific conduct, timing, and stage of the proceeding at which it occurred.
- Consider whether the matter is more appropriately addressed through this specific offence, given the Contempt of Courts Act's restriction on summary contempt powers for conduct punishable under the Code.
- File a complaint before the appropriate court or Magistrate, since the offence is non-cognizable in most states.
- Consult with the court registry or relevant administrative authority about the appropriate procedural route in your jurisdiction.
If You Are Accused Under Section 228
- Consult a criminal lawyer promptly to assess the specific facts, including whether the alleged conduct was genuinely intentional.
- Gather evidence if the disruption or comment was accidental, or arose from a legitimate procedural objection rather than a deliberate insult.
- Being bailable, you are entitled to bail as a matter of right.
- Work with your lawyer to understand how courts have distinguished genuine insult or interruption from legitimate advocacy or procedural disagreement.
How Section 228 Relates to Neighbouring Provisions
- Section 219 punishes a public servant, in a judicial proceeding, corruptly making a report or order contrary to law — addressing misconduct from within the system.
- Section 228 (this section) punishes intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding — addressing misconduct from outside, directed at the officer.
- Section 229 punishes personation of a juror or assessor, a related offence against the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Section 10, restricts a High Court's power to punish contempt of a subordinate court where the conduct is separately punishable under a Code provision such as this one, effectively channelling such matters through the ordinary criminal process.