The courtroom is a place of dignity. Judges, magistrates, and other public servants work to ensure justice is served. But what happens when someone deliberately insults or interrupts them while they are performing their duty? This is where BNS Section 267 comes into play.
Let’s break this down in easy language.
What is BNS Section 267?
BNS Section 267 is part of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This section specifically deals with:
“Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding.”
That means if someone deliberately disturbs a judge or any other public servant during a court session or judicial duty, they can be punished.
BNS Section 267: The Language of the Law
Here’s what the section says in essence:
If a person intentionally insults a public servant, or interrupts a public servant while they are sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, then that person is liable to be punished.
Punishment Under BNS Section 267
The law is clear. If someone is found guilty under BNS Section 267, they can face:
Simple imprisonment for up to 6 months, or
Fine up to ₹1,000, or
Both imprisonment and fine
The punishment is mild but symbolic. The idea is to protect the respect and decorum of judicial proceedings.
Short Note on BNS Section 267
Section Name: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding
Offence Type: Non-cognizable and bailable
Court: Tried by any magistrate
Punishment: Up to 6 months imprisonment, fine, or both
Applicability: Applies during any judicial proceeding
Why BNS Section 267 Law Matters
The justice system depends on order and respect. Courtrooms cannot function if there’s chaos or disrespect. Even small interruptions can delay justice.
BNS Section 267 ensures that judges are not disrespected, legal proceedings go smoothly, and public servants can do their job without fear of insult or disturbance.
BNS Section 267 Real-Life Example: A Case to Consider
Case: Re: Arundhati Roy (Contempt Case)
While this case doesn’t fall directly under BNS Section 267 (since it was under contempt of court laws), it’s a good example of how serious the courts are about disruptions.
What happened?
Writer Arundhati Roy made strong public statements criticizing court orders.
Outcome?
The Supreme Court took suo moto contempt action against her. The case highlighted how the dignity of court proceedings must be maintained.
If such actions happen inside the courtroom, they may fall under Section 267.
Simple Example Scenario
Imagine a man shouting angrily at a magistrate during a bail hearing.
Or someone throwing papers or walking into the courtroom and yelling at the judge.
Even if it’s out of frustration, if it’s done intentionally, that person can be booked under BNS Section 267.
Is It a Serious Offence?
Yes, but not grave.
This section falls under minor offences. However, the court takes it seriously because it affects the flow of justice and shows disrespect to the legal system.
So, while punishment may not be severe, consequences can impact the person’s legal reputation.
Other Laws Related to Section 267
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is broader and deals with both civil and criminal contempt.
But BNS Section 267 is more specific. It targets direct and intentional acts inside courtrooms or during official judicial duties.
It complements the Contempt of Court law, especially in cases where the act isn’t serious enough for contempt but still causes disruption.
Points to Remember
The insult must be intentional.
The interruption must happen during a judicial proceeding.
It must be directed at a public servant like a judge or magistrate.
It is a non-cognizable offence – police cannot arrest without court permission.
It is bailable – the accused has the right to get bail.
How Does It Protect the Justice System?
Laws like BNS Section 267 protect the integrity of courtrooms, judicial officials, and legal processes.
Without such protection, the authority of judges could be undermined. Justice could be delayed or derailed.
This law builds trust and discipline in the system.
Criticism and Concerns
Some critics argue that the section can be misused to silence dissent. Sometimes genuine frustration or emotional outbursts are penalized unfairly.
But courts usually look at the intention and context before taking action.
Conclusion
Section 267 Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding is a safeguard. It ensures that our legal system runs with respect and order.
It might seem like a small law, but its role is big. It reminds us that the courtroom is a sacred place of justice—not a place for drama, insults, or chaos.
So next time you’re in court, remember—silence is not just golden, it’s legal!
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified legal expert or lawyer for any case-specific guidance related to Section 267 or related laws.
