Offences Against the State — Waging War, Sedition (Sections 121–130 IPC)

Sections 147 to 158 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — re-enacting Sections 121 to 130 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — collect the offences whose victim is not a private individual but the Indian State itself. The chapter punishes waging war, conspiring to wage war, collecting arms for war, concealing such designs, assaulting the President or a Governor, depredations on a friendly State, and connivance in the escape of a State prisoner. Sovereignty, in this scheme, is not an abstract attribute of constitutional theory; it is a legally protected interest with a penal sanction.

The architecture is significant. The Code protects preparation as well as commission — Section 149 BNS punishes the mere collection of arms, and Section 150 BNS punishes mere concealment of a design — because by the time the war is waged, the harm is already irreparable. The drafting strategy explains why Section 23 BNS (previously Section 511 IPC) on attempt is not the leading provision here: the State's interest is protected by criminalising the road, not just the destination.

Statutory anchor and scheme

Chapter VII of the BNS opens with Section 147 BNS (previously Section 121 IPC) — waging war against the Government of India — and closes with Section 158 BNS (previously Section 130 IPC) on aiding the escape of a State prisoner. Section 152 BNS — the new offence of acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India — sits between Sections 151 and 153 and effectively replaces Section 124A IPC (sedition), which has been dropped. That replacement is dealt with in a separate chapter; the present chapter focuses on the surviving offences.

The provisions cluster into five groups: (i) war proper (Sections 147 to 150 BNS); (ii) assault on the President or a Governor (Section 151 BNS); (iii) the new sovereignty-protection offence (Section 152 BNS); (iv) acts against a foreign State at peace with India (Sections 153 to 155 BNS); and (v) custody-of-State-prisoner offences (Sections 156 to 158 BNS). A statutory bar on cognizance — Section 196 BNSS (previously Section 196 CrPC) — runs across the whole chapter: no court takes cognizance of any of these offences without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government.

Section 147 BNS — waging war against the Government of India

The offence has three limbs: (i) waging war; (ii) attempting to wage war; (iii) abetting the waging of war. Each carries the same outer punishment — death or life imprisonment, plus fine. The expression Government of India is not used in a narrow administrative sense. In Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the phrase signifies the Indian State as a juristic embodiment of the sovereignty of the country, deriving its legitimacy from the collective will of its people.

What is "war" under Section 147 BNS?

The leading authority is State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru AIR 2005 SC 3820 — the Parliament Attack Case. Reddi J, speaking for the Court, drew on the 1847 Indian Law Commission Report: a person wages war when he arrays himself in defiance of the Government in the manner and by the means a foreign enemy would adopt. The intent must strike at the sovereignty of the State, not merely at public order.

Five propositions emerge from Navjot Sandhu and Kasab:

1. No specific number of persons is required — "war" is not a numerical concept.
2. The manner of arming or assembly is not material.
3. The decisive criterion is quo animo — the intent with which the gathering is assembled.
4. The object must be to attain by force and violence an object that strikes directly at the State's authority.
5. There is no distinction between principal and accessory; all who take part incur the same guilt.

Caution against the old test

The Supreme Court in Navjot Sandhu dissociated itself from the old English and Indian authorities to the extent that they laid down a too-general test of "attainment of an object of a general public nature or political object". A balanced and realistic approach is required. Not every violent agitation against an unpopular law amounts to waging war. The expression must not be stretched to absorb every public-order disturbance, however grave; the animus to subvert the State is the marker.

Foreign nationals and the Mumbai attack

The word whoever in Section 147 BNS is broad. A foreign national entering Indian territory to subvert the functioning of the Government and destabilise society is squarely within the section — Kasab rejected the suggestion that the offence presupposes allegiance to the Indian State. The conspiracy in Kasab aimed at hitting India's financial centre, fomenting communal tension, and dictating India's foreign relations. "Nothing," the Court observed, "could have been more in like manner and by like means as a foreign enemy would do."

Terrorist acts and waging war

Not every terrorist act amounts to waging war, and not every act of waging war is a terrorist act, but the two overlap. Where a terrorist act is prompted by an intention to strike at the sovereign authority of the State, irrespective of the number involved or the force employed, it tantamounts to waging war. The relationship is one of degree. Chapter IV of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 does not impliedly repeal Section 147 BNS; the two provisions cover different conceptual territory.

Section 148 BNS — conspiracy to wage war

Section 148 BNS (previously Section 121A IPC) covers two distinct conspiracies: (i) conspiring within or outside India to commit any offence under Section 147 BNS; and (ii) conspiring to overawe, by criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government. The maximum punishment is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, plus fine. The BNS adds the clarificatory phrase "and beyond" to the territorial reach, but the substance is unchanged from Section 121A IPC.

The Explanation is critical: no overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy is required. The agreement itself is the gravamen. This is one of the few places in the Code where a bare conspiracy — without the corroboration that Section 61(2) BNS (previously Section 120B IPC) on criminal conspiracy ordinarily demands for non-grave offences — is itself the offence.

Meaning of "overawe"

The word overawe imports more than mere apprehension or fear. It connotes the creation of a situation in which members of the Government feel themselves compelled to choose between yielding to force or exposing themselves or the public to serious danger. The danger need not be assassination or bodily injury; danger to public property or to the safety of the general public suffices. A bare slogan that the Government can be changed by armed revolution is not, by itself, a conspiracy to overawe — context, capacity and intent matter.

Section 149 BNS — collecting arms

Section 149 BNS (previously Section 122 IPC) punishes collecting men, arms or ammunition — or otherwise preparing to wage war — with the intention of waging war or being prepared to wage war. The maximum is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, plus fine.

Two doctrinal points must be remembered. First, this is one of the rare sections where mere preparation is a distinct offence — preparation, in Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 3 SCC 602, is the devising or arranging of the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence and is ordinarily a stage anterior to attempt. The Code makes preparation punishable only in a closed list — Section 149 BNS (war), Section 310(5) BNS (preparation for dacoity, previously Section 399 IPC), and a few others. Second, the section operates alongside Section 148 BNS — collecting arms in pursuance of a conspiracy to wage war attracts both provisions.

Section 150 BNS — concealing a design to wage war

Section 150 BNS (previously Section 123 IPC) punishes concealment, by act or illegal omission, of the existence of a design to wage war against the Government of India, where the concealer intends thereby to facilitate the waging of war or knows it is likely to facilitate it. Punishment may extend to ten years and fine.

The offence is closely linked to Section 39 BNSS read with Section 222 BNS (previously Section 39 CrPC read with Section 176 IPC), which makes it an offence for any person aware of the commission or intended commission of an offence under Sections 147 to 154 BNS to omit to give notice. Shaukat Hussain Guru v. State (NCT) Delhi (2008) 6 SCC 776 illustrates the interaction: where the prosecution failed on the major Section 121 IPC charge but proved concealment, conviction under Section 123 IPC was sustained as a minor offence within the framed charges.

Section 151 BNS — assault on President or Governor

Section 151 BNS (previously Section 124 IPC) punishes assault, wrongful restraint, or overawing by criminal force of the President of India or the Governor of any State, with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power. Imprisonment may extend to seven years, plus fine. The provision is, in effect, an amplification of the third limb of Section 148 BNS — singling out the highest constitutional functionaries for special protection.

Section 152 BNS — replacement of sedition

Section 124A IPC (sedition) finds no direct counterpart in the BNS. In its place, Section 152 BNS criminalises words, signs, visible representations or electronic communications that excite — or attempt to excite — secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or feelings of separatist activities, or that endanger the sovereignty, unity or integrity of India. The shift in focus — from "disaffection towards Government" to "endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity" — is doctrinally significant and is examined at length in the dedicated chapter on the replacement of sedition.

Old sedition jurisprudence — Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955, Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1785, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431 — remains relevant only to the extent its constitutional reasoning maps onto Section 152 BNS. The black-letter offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC, kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court's interim order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022), is no longer on the statute book.

Sections 153 to 155 BNS — offences against a foreign State at peace with India

Section 153 BNS (previously Section 125 IPC) punishes waging war against the Government of any foreign State at peace with the Government of India. The BNS replaces the IPC's archaic phrase "any Asiatic Power in alliance" with "Government of any foreign State at peace" — a substantive change widening the protective net to all friendly States, not merely Asiatic neighbours. Punishment is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years, with fine.

Section 154 BNS (previously Section 126 IPC) punishes depredation, or preparation to commit depredation, on the territories of any foreign State at peace with India — imprisonment up to seven years, plus fine and forfeiture of property used or acquired. Section 155 BNS (previously Section 127 IPC) punishes the receipt of property knowing it to have been taken in the commission of an offence under Sections 153 or 154 BNS — imprisonment up to seven years, plus fine and forfeiture.

The rationale of these three sections is the obligation of comity. Section 153 BNS does not prevent India from offering political asylum to a deposed ruler; it prevents India from being made the base of intrigue against a friendly State.

Sections 156 to 158 BNS — escape of State prisoner or prisoner of war

Three sections deal with breaches of custody:

1. Section 156 BNS (previously Section 128 IPC) — public servant in custody of a State prisoner or prisoner of war who voluntarily allows escape: life imprisonment or up to ten years, plus fine.
2. Section 157 BNS (previously Section 129 IPC) — public servant who negligently suffers such a prisoner to escape: simple imprisonment up to three years, plus fine.
3. Section 158 BNS (previously Section 130 IPC) — any person who knowingly aids, rescues, harbours or resists recapture of such a prisoner: life imprisonment or up to ten years, plus fine.

Two terms must be precisely understood. A State prisoner is one whose confinement is necessary to preserve the security of India from foreign hostility or internal commotion, confined by the order of the Government of India. A prisoner of war is one taken in arms in war; those who are not in arms, or who have submitted and surrendered, are not prisoners of war within the section. The offences under Sections 156 and 157 are aggravated forms of the parallel offences against ordinary prisoners under Sections 263 and 261 BNS (previously Sections 225A and 223 IPC), reflecting the heightened public interest in keeping such prisoners in custody.

Sanction for prosecution — Section 196 BNSS

No court takes cognizance of any offence under Sections 147 to 158 BNS without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as required by Section 196 BNSS (previously Section 196 CrPC). The sanction is a substantive safeguard — it ensures that the political organ of the State, not the police machinery, makes the threshold judgment that prosecution is in the public interest. Jamil Akhtar v. State of West Bengal 2001 Cr LJ 4529 (Cal) shows the consequence of non-compliance: where sanction is obtained only after cognizance, the matter must be remitted for fresh disposal from the date of valid sanction.

Distinguishing waging war from cognate offences

The chapter sits at the boundary of three other doctrines. First, waging war is not the same as rioting: rioting protects public order; waging war protects sovereignty. Second, terrorist acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and now Section 113 BNS (the terrorist act offence) overlap with Section 147 BNS but are doctrinally distinct — the former focuses on intimidation of the population or compulsion of the State; the latter focuses on the manner of foreign-enemy-like assault. Third, conspiracy under Section 148 BNS dispenses with the overt-act requirement that ordinarily attaches to a conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS read with the proviso to Section 61(2)(ii).

Common-intention and abetment in this chapter

Two general-part doctrines repeatedly attach to Section 147 BNS in practice. Abetment under Sections 45 to 60 BNS is built into the section itself — abetting waging of war is treated on a footing identical to waging it. Common intention under Section 3(5) BNS (previously Section 34 IPC) extends liability to all participants in a pre-arranged plan: in Md Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal 2014 Cr LJ 3589, the Supreme Court applied the principles of Sections 121, 121A and 122 read with Section 120B IPC to a coordinated assault on a paramilitary installation, treating the entire plan as a single waging-war operation.

Punishment scheme at a glance

The punishment ladder reflects the gravity assigned by the Code:

• Section 147 BNS — death or life imprisonment, with fine.
• Section 148 BNS — life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, with fine.
• Section 149 BNS — life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, with fine.
• Section 150 BNS — imprisonment up to ten years, with fine.
• Section 151 BNS — imprisonment up to seven years, with fine.
• Section 152 BNS — life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to seven years, with fine.
• Section 153 BNS — life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years, with fine.
• Section 154 BNS — imprisonment up to seven years, with fine and forfeiture.
• Section 155 BNS — imprisonment up to seven years, with fine and forfeiture.
• Section 156 BNS — life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, with fine.
• Section 157 BNS — simple imprisonment up to three years, with fine.
• Section 158 BNS — life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, with fine.

Death is reserved exclusively for Section 147 BNS, mirroring the IPC scheme; even the most aggravated conspiracy under Section 148 BNS or the most reckless concealment under Section 150 BNS does not carry capital sanction. The framework for the sentencing exercise itself is set out in the chapter on punishments.

Charge framing and minor-offence convictions

An exam-aspirant must remember the procedural device that runs through this chapter. Where the major charge under Section 147 BNS fails but the evidence proves a minor offence within the same chapter — typically Section 150 BNS (concealment) — the trial court may convict for the minor offence even without a separate charge. Shaukat Hussain Guru v. State (NCT) Delhi AIR 2008 SC 2419 is the leading authority: the case the accused had to meet under Section 123 IPC was no different from the case he was confronted with on the major charges, so the absence of a Section 123 charge caused no prejudice. The principle now operates under Section 222 BNSS, which mirrors Section 222 CrPC.

Publication and overt-act issues

For Sections 147 and 152 BNS, the question of publication recurs. Seditious or war-inciting writing while it remains in the hands of the author is not punishable; some form of publication is necessary. Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 held that the accused need not be the author — distribution or circulation may suffice on the facts, and even the act of a courier may be enough in a conspiracy case. The participant need not have been part of the conspiracy from start to finish. These propositions, though decided under the IPC, transfer cleanly to the BNS framework because the actus reus elements have been re-enacted without doctrinal change.

Reading the chapter as a system

The doctrinal pattern across Sections 147 to 158 BNS is one of layered protection: the Code criminalises preparation (Section 149), conspiracy (Section 148), concealment (Section 150), substantive war (Section 147), the foreign analogue (Sections 153 to 155), assault on the constitutional head (Section 151), and the ancillary failure of custody (Sections 156 to 158). Each layer attaches at a different stage of the unlawful design. For the exam-aspirant, the takeaway is structural: when a fact-pattern hits any one stage, the Code already supplies an offence — and often more than one, with cumulative liability under Section 9 BNS (previously Section 71 IPC) ensuring no overlap-induced acquittal. The framework also illustrates why general exceptions are not normally pleaded here: an act of waging war negates by its very nature the good-faith and authority defences that operate elsewhere in the Code.

Frequently asked questions

Does Section 147 BNS require an army-like body of armed combatants?

No. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) expressly held that no specific number of persons is required, and the manner in which the gathering is armed is not material. The decisive criterion is the intent with which the gathering is assembled — the object must be to strike directly at the sovereignty of the State by force. A small fidayeen squad attacking Parliament House qualifies; a large unarmed protest against an unpopular law does not.

Is conspiracy under Section 148 BNS the same as criminal conspiracy under Section 61 BNS?

They overlap but are not identical. Section 61 BNS (previously Section 120A IPC) generally requires an overt act unless the conspiracy is to commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more. Section 148 BNS (previously Section 121A IPC) dispenses with the overt-act requirement entirely — its own Explanation says no act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy need take place. The agreement itself is the offence.

What is the difference between Section 149 BNS (collecting arms) and Section 23 BNS (attempt)?

Section 149 BNS criminalises preparation — devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for war. Section 23 BNS (previously Section 511 IPC), as explained in Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), criminalises attempt — the direct movement towards commission after preparations are made. Preparation is ordinarily not punishable; the legislature has carved out a narrow exception for waging war and dacoity because the State's interest demands intervention before the act.

Why was Section 124A IPC (sedition) not retained in the BNS?

The legislature replaced sedition with Section 152 BNS, which criminalises acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The shift moves the doctrinal focus from disaffection towards Government — a colonial-era concept tied to loyalty to the Crown — to the protection of the territorial and constitutional integrity of the State. Old sedition case law (Kedar Nath Singh, Balwant Singh, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo) remains relevant only insofar as its constitutional reasoning on free-speech limits maps onto the new offence.

Can a foreign national be convicted under Section 147 BNS?

Yes. The Supreme Court in Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 held that the word whoever in Section 121 IPC — now Section 147 BNS — is broad and is not confined to those who owe allegiance to the established Government. A foreign national entering Indian territory with intent to subvert the functioning of the Government and destabilise society is squarely within the section. The Mumbai attack convictions were sustained on this basis.

Is sanction under Section 196 BNSS a mere formality or a substantive safeguard?

It is a substantive safeguard. No court can take cognizance of any offence under Sections 147 to 158 BNS without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government. Sanction obtained after cognizance does not validate the proceedings; the matter must be remitted for fresh disposal from the date of valid sanction, as Jamil Akhtar v. State of West Bengal 2001 Cr LJ 4529 (Cal) illustrates. The requirement ensures that the political organ, not the police machinery, makes the threshold judgment of public interest.