image

We Fight for the Justice you deserve

100

YRS

of matching people to attorneys

98

%

lawyers listed are verified

10

M

monthly visit our network

100

+

practice areas covered.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory
Mindy Carr
Ad

Mindy Carr

4.7

New York Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC, United States

Practice Areas :

A Window of art Spreading Love
Lawrence Glosser
Ad

Lawrence Glosser

4.5

86 East Pine Street, Seattle, WA, United States

Practice Areas :

Legendary sushi maestro in your town
Andre Olivie
Ad

Andre Olivie

5.0

3571 Broad St, Chamblee, GA 30341, USA

Practice Areas :

We exist to reduce the inconvenience

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.
Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit v oluptatem accusantium or sit

Book a Lawyer

Book a Lawyer

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit v oluptatem accusantium or sit

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit v oluptatem accusantium or sit

Browse Attorneys

Find your attorney by different types

Serving Around the Globe

Watch Actual People from worldwide are talking about our firm

nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb
nyayseva_y0yzjb

From Our Blogs

See Services In These Cities
BNS Section 357: Breach of Contract to Care for Helpless Person – Explained
Prem Kumar R. Pandey

BNS Section 357: Breach of Contract to Care for Helpless Person – Explained
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) aims to modernize and streamline India’s criminal justice framework. Among its many provisions, BNS Section 357 stands out for addressing an often overlooked but serious issue — the neglect of helpless individuals by those who are contractually bound to care for them. This provision introduces criminal liability for intentional breach of a contract where the affected party is a person unable to care for themselves. It embodies the evolving recognition of human dignity and protection for the vulnerable under criminal law. Statutory Provision: BNS Section 357 The language of Section 357 reads: "Whoever, being bound by a contract to attend on or supply the wants of any helpless person, and intentionally omits to do so, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both." This section criminalizes the act of intentionally failing to fulfil a contractual obligation to provide care or assistance to a helpless person. Key Elements of the Offence To invoke BNS Section 357, the following must be established: Existence of a Contract: There must be a legally valid (oral or written) contract under which the accused undertakes to attend to or supply the needs of a helpless individual. Status of the Person: The individual to whom care is owed must be a helpless person — someone physically or mentally incapable of self-care. Intentional Omission: The accused must have willfully failed to perform the duties stipulated in the contract. The section does not cover unintentional acts or failures due to unforeseen circumstances unless malice or recklessness can be inferred. Understanding the Term 'Helpless Person' The law does not provide an exhaustive definition. However, in practice, this term has been interpreted to include: Elderly individuals incapable of self-care, Persons with disabilities or chronic illness, Children or mentally incapacitated adults. The definition may evolve with judicial interpretations based on facts and social contexts. Legal Classification Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable and bailable Trial: Triable by any Magistrate Punishment: Imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both The relatively mild punishment reflects the social nature of the offence, while still maintaining the potential for deterrence. Relevant Judicial Precedents 1. Mohanlal v. State of RajasthanAIR 1982 SC 839 Though predating BNS, this Supreme Court decision stressed the importance of upholding commitments made to vulnerable individuals, especially where neglect could endanger life or health. The Court recognized such omissions as deserving of criminal scrutiny. 2. State v. RameshDelhi High Court, 2015 A caregiver failed to attend to a mentally challenged individual under a formal engagement, resulting in severe hardship. The Court held that breach of duty, when intentional and harmful, could attract penal consequences — a principle now encapsulated in Section 357. These cases reinforce the principle that legal obligations to the helpless carry moral and criminal accountability when breached with intent. Distinction from Civil Breach of Contract Generally, breaches of contract are civil wrongs and remedied by compensation or specific performance. However, BNS Section 357 treats certain breaches as criminal — particularly when: The breach impacts a helpless person, and The omission is intentional, with potential for serious harm or neglect. This provision elevates contractual responsibility into a matter of public concern, focusing on the welfare and dignity of vulnerable individuals. Defenses Available Persons accused under this provision may raise defenses such as: Absence of a valid contract, Lack of intention or malafide, Sudden medical or personal emergency, That the person was not in a helpless condition at the relevant time. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish intentional neglect beyond reasonable doubt. Implications for Caregivers and Institutions This section has broad implications for: Private caregivers, nurses, and domestic workers under contract, Institutions and organizations that provide elder or patient care, Guardians and foster caretakers with contractual responsibilities. It acts as a safeguard against abandonment, ensuring that those most in need of protection are not left to suffer due to contractual breaches. Short Note on BNS Section 357 Provision: Criminalizes intentional failure to care for helpless persons under a contractual obligation. Punishment: Up to 6 months' imprisonment or ₹5,000 fine, or both. Nature: Bailable, non-cognizable. Objective: Protection of vulnerable individuals by enforcing care obligations. Conclusion BNS Section 357 fills a vital gap in the criminal law landscape by imposing penal consequences for the intentional breach of care obligations owed to helpless individuals. It upholds the principle that compassion, once legally promised, must not be withdrawn at whim, especially when the welfare of the vulnerable is at stake. In a society increasingly confronting issues related to elder abandonment, disability care, and neglect, this provision serves as a legal reminder that such actions carry not just social stigma but also criminal liability. Disclaimer This article is intended for general legal awareness and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or opinion. For advice on individual cases, please consult a qualified legal practitioner.

Section

May 28, 2025

BNS Section 356 Defamation – Meaning, Punishment & Case Laws | BNS 2023
Prem Kumar R. Pandey

BNS Section 356 Defamation – Meaning, Punishment & Case Laws | BNS 2023
The right to reputation is a core aspect of personal dignity. In India, defamation is both a civil wrong and a criminal offense. The newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) continues to recognize defamation as a punishable act under Section 356. This provision retains the spirit of the erstwhile Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but integrates it within the framework of modern legislative reform. Let us explore BNS Section 356 – Defamation, its scope, exceptions, punishment, relevant case law, and its relevance in today's context. Short Note on BNS Section 356 Defamation Section 356 of the BNS 2023 defines defamation as the act of making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs or visible representations, with the intent to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. Key Ingredients of Defamation To constitute an offense under BNS Section 356, the following elements must be established: Publication or communication of an imputation. The imputation must refer to a specific person or identifiable class. There must be an intention to harm, or knowledge that it may harm reputation. The imputation should be injurious to the person's reputation in the eyes of others. Types of Defamation Libel – Defamation in a written, printed, or published form (including digital platforms). Slander – Defamation through spoken words or gestures. Both forms are covered under Section 356, without distinction in penalty. Exceptions under BNS Section 356 The section carves out ten exceptions, protecting acts done in good faith or for public interest. Some notable ones include: Truth published for public good Fair criticism of public servants or public conduct Commentary on judicial proceedings Criticism of literary or artistic performances Cautions and warnings issued in good faith These exceptions aim to balance freedom of expression with the right to reputation. Punishment under BNS Section 356 The punishment for defamation under the BNS is: Simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or Fine, or Both The offense is non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. Significant Judicial Pronouncements 1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation. It emphasized that Article 21 (right to life) includes the right to reputation, and this right must be preserved alongside freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). 2. M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu (2009) The Supreme Court held that a mere expression of opinion does not amount to defamation unless it crosses the threshold of malicious intent. 3. Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of West Bengal (2010) The Court reiterated that good faith and public interest are strong defenses in criminal defamation, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish these defenses. Digital Era and Defamation With the growth of digital media and social platforms, defamation has expanded beyond traditional print and speech. A tweet, blog, video, or meme can now constitute cyber defamation, making BNS Section 356 highly relevant in the age of online expression. Careless or malicious content, even forwarded messages, may invite criminal liability if they tarnish someone's image without basis or fall outside the statutory exceptions. Filing a Criminal Defamation Complaint An aggrieved person can initiate proceedings by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The magistrate may then call for evidence, and if satisfied, issue a summons to the accused. Given its non-cognizable nature, the police cannot investigate the matter without prior approval from the magistrate. Civil vs. Criminal Defamation AspectCivil DefamationCriminal Defamation (BNS Section 356)ObjectiveMonetary compensationPunishment (imprisonment/fine)Legal ProcedureCivil SuitCriminal ComplaintBurden of ProofPreponderance of probabilityBeyond reasonable doubtOutcomeDamages awardedPenal action (sentence) An individual may pursue both remedies simultaneously if both civil injury and criminal offense are involved. Importance of BNS Section 356 Defamation in Present Context BNS Section 356 plays a crucial role in preserving individual dignity, especially in a socio-cultural landscape where public perception matters significantly. It acts as a deterrent against baseless allegations, smear campaigns, and reckless public statements. At the same time, the inclusion of detailed exceptions ensures that free speech and healthy criticism are not compromised. Criticism and Debate Many legal scholars and activists argue that criminal defamation can have a chilling effect on free expression. It is often invoked against journalists, whistleblowers, or political dissenters. Despite such criticism, courts in India have continued to uphold its constitutional validity, reiterating the importance of a balanced approach between speech and reputation. Practical Illustration Assume a person uploads a YouTube video falsely accusing a local doctor of medical negligence. The video goes viral, causing the doctor immense social and professional damage. If the accusations are unsubstantiated and made maliciously, the doctor can file a case under BNS Section 356. However, if the video was based on truth, backed by evidence, and published for public interest, the uploader may be protected under the exceptions. Conclusion BNS Section 356 – Defamation is a robust legal provision designed to safeguard personal reputation. In a democratic society, freedom of speech must coexist with the responsibility not to harm others’ dignity. While criticism and free opinion are essential pillars of democracy, malicious defamation is not protected. Section 356 ensures accountability in public discourse, both offline and online. In the age of rapid communication, awareness about legal boundaries of expression is essential. Every citizen must be cautious, especially while sharing or publishing information that could potentially affect someone’s standing in society. Disclaimer This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation.

Section

May 27, 2025

BNS Section 355 Misconduct in Public by a Drunken Person Explained
Adv.Chetna Agrawal

BNS Section 355 Misconduct in Public by a Drunken Person Explained
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), several provisions from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been revised and reorganized to reflect contemporary standards of justice and public order. One such provision is BNS Section 355, which addresses misconduct in public spaces by intoxicated individuals. Statutory Provision: BNS Section 355 Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states: “Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place or behaves in a disorderly or indecent manner, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.” This section essentially replaces the erstwhile Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code, offering clearer language and a more streamlined structure. Essential Ingredients For an offence under BNS Section 355 to be made out, the following elements must be established: The person must be under the influence of alcohol or any intoxicating substance. The act must occur in a public place. The individual must exhibit disorderly or indecent behavior. Each of these components is essential. The mere fact of being intoxicated in a public place does not constitute an offence unless accompanied by inappropriate conduct. Nature of Offence Classification: Non-cognizable and bailable Triable by: Any Magistrate Maximum Punishment: Simple imprisonment for 24 hours or fine up to ₹200 or both The classification as a non-cognizable offence ensures that police action is regulated and subject to procedural safeguards, while the bailable nature of the offence reflects its relatively minor gravity. Objective and Rationale The legislative intent behind Section 355 is to maintain public decency, peace, and order. Public intoxication that results in harassment, nuisance, or a breach of peace poses a threat to communal harmony and safety, particularly in densely populated areas. By enabling swift punitive action with limited judicial involvement, this provision seeks to deter minor but disruptive behavior without overburdening the criminal justice system. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law of BNS Section 355 1. Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2022) Facts: The accused was found in an inebriated state on a suburban train, shouting at passengers and obstructing railway staff.Held: The Bombay High Court held that public intoxication leading to disruption in transport systems warranted penal action. The court upheld the accused’s brief detention and fine under the old IPC provision, which aligns with BNS Section 355 in spirit. 2. Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. (2024) Facts: The petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, was seen engaging in obscene dance on a public street during a Holi procession.Held: The court emphasized that festive occasions do not create exceptions to public conduct norms. The behavior constituted indecency and justified fine under applicable laws. These cases underscore the judiciary’s recognition of public order as paramount, particularly when individual behavior, under intoxication, disturbs the peace or dignity of others. Comparison with IPC Section 510 CriteriaIPC Section 510BNS Section 355LanguageArchaic and broadClear and specificFine₹10₹200ImprisonmentUp to 24 hoursUp to 24 hoursFocusGeneral misconduct while drunkSpecific focus on public place and indecent or disorderly behavior The revised provision under the BNS reflects an updated socio-legal approach, addressing gaps in interpretation and enforcement. Scope and Limitations of BNS Section 355 Scope: Applicable to conduct in public places (streets, transport, markets, etc.) Targets visible, offensive behavior that disturbs peace or causes discomfort Limitations: Does not criminalize private drinking Misuse by authorities remains a concern; arrests must be based on observable misconduct, not mere suspicion of intoxication The law must not be used to target individuals based on appearance or social status. Enforcement requires a measured and lawful approach to avoid abuse of power. Law Enforcement and Procedural Aspects Although non-cognizable, police officers are permitted to act under summary trial procedures, particularly when immediate action is required to restore order. In many instances, individuals may be released after payment of fine or warned, depending on the nature and gravity of misconduct. Judicial discretion plays a key role in ensuring proportionate punishment. Short Note on BNS Section 355 Name of the Offence: Misconduct in public by a drunken person Legal Provision: Section 355, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Punishment: Simple imprisonment up to 24 hours, or fine up to ₹200, or both Nature: Non-cognizable, bailable, triable by any Magistrate Purpose: To penalize minor but disruptive behavior in public caused by intoxication Conclusion BNS Section 355 Misconduct in public by a drunken person is a pragmatic legal tool designed to uphold public decorum and prevent disorder arising from drunken behavior in public. Its introduction within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represents a step forward in harmonizing penal provisions with modern urban realities. While the offence is minor, the legal consequences act as a deterrent against public indecency and nuisance. However, the application of this provision must be guided by fairness, due process, and discretion, ensuring that it is not misused for moral policing or harassment. As India modernizes its criminal law framework, such provisions serve as instruments of balanced justice, offering both deterrence and procedural economy. Disclaimer This article is intended for informational and academic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or opinion. Readers are advised to consult a licensed legal practitioner for case-specific guidance or representation.

Section

May 27, 2025

Featured in

Our Partner
Our Partner
Our Partner
Our Partner
Our Partner