Offences against public tranquillity

1. Unlawful assembly: section 189(1)

An assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if its common object is one of the following (old s.141 IPC):

• (a) to overawe, by criminal force or its show, the Central or a State Government, Parliament or a State Legislature, or a public servant exercising lawful power;
• (b) to resist the execution of any law or legal process;
• (c) to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence;
• (d) by criminal force or its show, to take possession of property, deprive a person of a right of way or use of water or other incorporeal right, or enforce any right or supposed right;
• (e) by criminal force or its show, to compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do or omit what he is legally entitled to do.

The Explanation adds that an assembly lawful when it gathered may become unlawful later, when its members adopt one of these objects. Clause (d) is worth noticing: even a person with a genuine right to property may not enforce it by force through an assembly of five.

2. Membership and the related punishments

A person is a member of an unlawful assembly if, being aware of the facts that make it unlawful, he intentionally joins or continues in it (s.189(2), old s.142). The rest of s.189 sets out the offences:

• membership, up to six months (s.189(2), old s.143);
• joining or continuing after a lawful command to disperse, up to two years (s.189(3), old s.145);
• membership while armed with a deadly weapon, up to two years (s.189(4), old s.144);
• continuing in an assembly of five or more likely to disturb the peace after a command to disperse (s.189(5), old s.151);
• hiring or employing persons to join an unlawful assembly, with liability as a member and for offences they commit (s.189(6), old s.150); harbouring such persons (s.189(7), old s.157); and being hired (s.189(8) and (9), old s.158).

A bystander or a curious onlooker is not a member. Mere presence becomes membership only when it is shown that the person shared the common object.

3. Constructive liability: section 190

If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, or such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who was a member at that time is guilty of that offence (old s.149). Two limbs, then: offences done to achieve the object, and offences the members knew were likely in achieving it.

In Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 INSC 149, AIR 1965 SC 202, a large armed crowd killed several persons. The Court held that once membership of the unlawful assembly with the common object is proved, no overt act need be shown against each member. It also laid down a rule of prudence for crowd cases: the court may insist on two or more consistent eyewitnesses before convicting a particular accused, to guard against false implication.

4. Rioting: sections 191 and 192

Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or any member, in prosecution of the common object, every member is guilty of rioting (s.191(1), old s.146). Punishment is up to two years (old s.147), or up to five years if armed with a deadly weapon (s.191(3), old s.148). Rioting therefore needs (i) an unlawful assembly, (ii) use of force or violence, by even one member, and (iii) in prosecution of the common object. Section 192 (old s.153) punishes wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause a riot.

Section 193 (old ss.154 to 156) makes the owner or occupier of land, and his agent, liable to fine if he fails to give notice to the police or to use lawful means to prevent or disperse an unlawful assembly or riot on his land.

5. Affray and obstructing public servants: sections 194 and 195

When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they commit an affray (s.194, old ss.159 and 160), punishable with up to one month, or fine up to one thousand rupees. Distinguish rioting: affray needs only two people, no common object and a public place; rioting needs five, a common object and force, wherever it happens. Section 195 (old s.152) punishes assaulting or obstructing a public servant suppressing a riot or affray, with a new minimum fine of twenty-five thousand rupees where fine is imposed under s.195(1).

6. Promoting enmity between groups: section 196

Section 196 (old s.153A) punishes whoever, by words, signs, visible representations, electronic communication or otherwise:

• (a) promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups;
• (b) commits an act prejudicial to harmony between groups that disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity; or
• (c) organises or takes part in drills or exercises in which participants are trained to use criminal force against a group, causing fear or insecurity among its members.

Up to three years, or five years if committed in a place of worship or a religious assembly. In Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 INSC 598, (1997) 7 SCC 431, the Court held that the offence requires at least two groups or communities: words that merely praise one community or criticise the Government, without setting one group against another, do not attract it. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India, 2020 INSC 682, (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Court explained that hate speech is judged by its content, its context, the standing and influence of the speaker and its likely effect, measured by the standard of reasonable, strong-minded persons, not the most sensitive listener.

7. Imputations prejudicial to national integration: section 197

Section 197 (old s.153B) punishes making or publishing an imputation that a class of persons, because of religion, race, language, region, caste or community, cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; asserting that such a class should be denied rights as citizens; or making assertions about such a class that cause enmity. Clause (d) is new: making or publishing false or misleading information jeopardising the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India. Three years, or five in a place of worship.

8. Problem

Seven villagers armed with sticks go to B's field to cut and carry away a standing crop they claim is theirs. B resists; one of them, X, takes out a knife he was secretly carrying and stabs B to death. Are all seven guilty of murder?

Issue. Whether the murder by X was committed in prosecution of the common object, or was known to be likely, so as to make all members liable under s.190.

Law. An assembly of five or more with the common object of taking property by show of force is unlawful under s.189(1)(d). Section 190 extends liability to offences committed in prosecution of the common object or known to be likely in its prosecution.

Application. All seven are members of an unlawful assembly and, since sticks were used against B, guilty of rioting armed with deadly weapons under s.191(3). The common object was to take the crop, not to kill. The others carried only sticks and did not know of X's knife. They may have known that hurt was likely if the owner resisted, but not that death would be caused with a concealed weapon.

Conclusion. X is guilty of murder under s.103. The other six are guilty of rioting under s.191(3), but not of murder. Had all of them come armed with spears, knowing B would resist, the second limb of s.190 would catch them all.

How this is examined

The usual 10-mark question is “Define unlawful assembly and explain the liability of its members” or “Distinguish common object and common intention.” Use sections 1, 3 and the comparison box. Rioting, affray and s.196 are short-note topics; for s.196 cite Bilal Ahmad Kaloo and give the new electronic-communication wording. A problem with a crowd of five or more and one member exceeding the plan tests s.190 as above.