OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY

This article is written by Piyush Singla of 3^rd Semester of BBA LLB (H) of Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

In today’s modern world there are various issues happening which are gaining major headlines, one of major issues is disturbance of public tranquillity. An atmosphere of peace, serenity, and order that permeates a neighbourhood or society is referred to as “public tranquilly.” It denotes the absence of conflicts, disturbances, or erratic behaviour that can impair society’s ability to operate normally. A community’s entire well-being depends on its citizens feeling safe, secure, and in harmony, which is why public tranquillity is so important. In this article we will discuss this issue in depth and various kinds of offences. We will also discuss charges for these offences.

Keywords: societal progress, calmness, peace, tranquillity, offences against public tranquillity, public order, unlawful assembly, rioting, affray, promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings, punishment.

Introduction

^[1]The foundation for societal progress is calmness and peace. The upkeep of peace and tranquillity is essential for any society and nation as a whole since without it, there cannot be opportunities for individuals to grow and develop to their full potential in society or any other type of hindrance. Offences against public tranquillity are those committed against not just one person or piece of property, but also the entire community. These types of crimes are done by a group of people who have the same goal in mind: to disturb the peace and tranquillity of a place, which will have an impact on the entire society. It is crucial to research these crimes so that they can be stopped.

A civilization’s foundation is peace and morality, thus maintaining these values is crucial; otherwise, the whole fabric of society would be threatened, which would impede the advancement of the individual.

The state has a responsibility to uphold public peace and order. To keep order in public areas and on public roadways, it is even included in Section 23 of the Police Act of 1861. It is actually illegal to disturb the public order or peace, obstruct it, irritate people, put themselves in danger, or do other harm. Additionally, Section 34 of the Police Act of 1861 charges the police with keeping the public calm and punishing offenders. Therefore, maintaining public order requires that one’s actions do not disturb the tranquillity of the community or inconvenience anybody else in any way.

Public Tranquillity

Any action taken by a group of people that distorts the state of peace in society is considered an offence against public tranquilly since the term “public tranquilly” relates to public peace. Offences against public tranquilly are defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is divided into Sections 141 to 160 and has provisions for these offences.

Various Offences

^[2]The categories and examples of offences against public tranquillity are shown below.

• Rioting
• Unlawful Assembly
• Affray
• Promoting enmity between different groups
• Outraging religious feeling

Rioting (Section 146 of IPC):- Rioting is a crime that takes place when three or more people come together with the intention of inflicting harm on others or destroying property. Rioting is a violation of Section 146 of the IPC. According to the clause, everyone who takes part in a riot can be penalised with up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

^[3]Essentials For Rioting

 The essentials of section 146 are as follows:

• That the accused persons, being five or more in number formed an Unlawful assembly.
• That they were animated by a common unlawful object;
• That the force or violence was used by the Unlawful assembly or any member thereof;
• That such force or violence was used in prosecution of their common (unlawful object).

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141 of IPC):- The crime of unlawful assembly is committed when five or more people come together with the intention of committing a crime. Unlawful assembly is a crime according to Section 141 of the IPC. According to the clause, everyone who takes part in an illegal assembly can be penalised with up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.

^[4]Elements of an unlawful assembly

The ingredients or elements of an unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are as follows:

• Assembly of five or more persons:- If there are five or more people gathered for a single purpose, the assembly is deemed illegal. The minimal number of participants thought to be necessary for an assembly to be deemed unlawful is five.
• Common intention:- A prohibited gathering’s participants need to share a common intention, often known as an objective or goal. The shared purpose must be destructive or criminal in nature.
• Commission of an offence or resistance to a law or legal process:- An unlawful assembly requires that all participants have one of two shared goals: either to commit an offence or to thwart the application of the law or legal procedure. This means that the gathering must have the aim to engage in behaviour that is harmful to society, disruptive to the legal system, or interferes with the enforcement of the law.

It is crucial to remember that the common aim cannot be determined after the fact; it must exist at the moment of the assembly. The participants taking part in the assembly must also be aware of their shared purpose, which means they must understand how their acts may be damaging or illegal.

A gathering must have five or more participants with a common intent to commit an act or obstruct the enforcement of a law or legal procedure in order to be deemed unlawful. At the time of the gathering, the participants must be aware of and share the common objective.

^[5]Essentials for being a member of unlawful assembly

• Knowledge of facts that render the assembly unlawful:-The person must be aware of the circumstances that render the gathering illegal. In other words, the person must be aware that the group is gathered for a purpose that is harmful or illegal.
• Intentional joining or continuing to be a member of the assembly:- Despite being aware of the circumstances that render the gathering illegal, the person must knowingly join the gathering or remain a part of it. This means that the person must act with the aim to take part in the assembly and must not just happen to be at the location by accident.
• Assembly of five or more persons:- The group must consist of five or more people who have the same goal in mind. This is the bare minimum needed for an assembly to be deemed illegal.
  in the sovereignty and security of the country within the bounds of acceptable constraints. Over time, public order has expanded dramatically in scope.

In the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalai Singh Yadav, the court has upheld the provision of ordered security, which gives precedence to the state if their intent is to protect public order.

Outraging religious feelings (Section 295A of IPC):- When someone purposefully insults or tries to insult the religious beliefs or feelings of any class of citizens, they are committing the crime of outraging religious feelings. Outraging religious sentiment is a crime according to Section 295A of the IPC. According to the clause, anyone who offends religious sentiment can be penalised with up to three years in prison, a fine, or both.

• In conclusion, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant had awareness of the circumstances that rendered the assembly illegal and that they purposefully joined or continued to be a part of the assembly in order to establish guilt under Section 142.

^[6]Difference between Rioting and Unlawful Assembly

• Rioting = Unlawful Assembly + Violence

Rioting is the same as an unlawful assembly with the addition of violence

• For example- Group A constructed a building. Group B, which was 10 in number, attacked group A and demolished the building. Forming a group to demolish a building is an unlawful assembly. Coming and demolishing the building in a group is rioting.

Affray (Section 159 Of IPC):- Affray is a crime that takes place when two or more people fight in public and cause a disturbance. Affair is a crime according to Section 159 of the IPC. According to the clause, anyone who engages in affray faces a penalty of up to one month in jail, a fine, or a combination of the two.

Promoting enmity between different groups (Section 153A Of IPC):- When someone intentionally fosters discord, animosity, hostility, or ill-will between various religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups, they are violating the law. Promoting hostility is a crime according to Section 153A of the IPC. According to the clause, anyone who incites animosity between groups can be penalised with up to three years in prison, a fine, or both.

^[7]Constitutional Validity of section 153A

This section is being contested on the grounds that it violates the Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(A) guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. This Section restricts statements and actions that can incite conflict between diverse groups and classes.

The legitimacy of this Section has, nevertheless, consistently been recognised by the legal system because it falls within the ambit of public order and, to some extent, with

^[8]Punishment for Offences Against Public Tranquillity

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Offences Against Public Tranquillity are listed under Chapter VIII, Sections 141 to 160. The following is a list of these offences along with the corresponding punishment as per the IPC:

• Section 141: Unlawful assembly is punishable by six months in prison, a fine, or both.
• Section 142: Participating in an unauthorised gathering may result in a six-month prison sentence, a fine, or both.

• Section 143: Illegal assembly is punishable by a six-month jail sentence, a fine, or both.

• Section 144: Authority to impose an order granting up to three years in prison, a fine, or both in circumstances of immediate nuisance or suspected risk.

• Section 145: Participating in or maintaining an unlawful assembly while being aware that you have been told to leave up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

• Section 146: Rioting: Up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.
• Section 147: The penalty for rioting is two years in prison, a fine, or both.

• Section 148: Armed with a lethal weapon and rioting a fine, a three-year jail sentence, or both.
• Section 149: Anyone found guilty of an offence related to the prosecution of a common object during an unlawful assembly faces a maximum six-month prison sentence, a fine, or both.

• Section 150: Enlisting someone to join an unauthorised assembly, or aiding and abetting someone to do so up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.
• Section 151: Willfully entering or remaining in a group of five or more people after they have been told to disperse up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.
• Section 152: Attacking or impeding a public official in the course of quelling a riot, etc. up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

• Section 153: Wantonly provocation with the intention of starting a riot carries a maximum one-year jail sentence, a fine, or both.

• Section 154: Owners or occupiers of property used for an unlawful assembly may be subject to a fine, up to six months in jail, or both.

• Section 155: Penalties for the person whose benefit an unauthorised assembly is held: up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.

• Section 156: Agents of owners or occupiers who hold unlawful assemblies are liable and may face up to six months in prison, a fine, or both.

Please be aware that the list above is not an exhaustive guide to the IPC; rather, it is merely a synopsis. Each offence may carry a different penalty based on the specifics of the case and the judge’s judgement

Important Judgements

• Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)

In the 2019 case of Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court of India considered the elements of Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses unlawful assembly. According to the case’s facts, the dead was attacked by a group of accused people and the appellant after one of his cattle jumped on the door of the latter’s home. This led to the appellant abusing the deceased, who ultimately died. The appellant had moreover sustained multiple injuries as a result of this attack. In this case, the question of whether the appellant, who was unarmed at the time of the attack on the deceased, qualified as a member of the unlawful assembly for the purposes of Section 141 of the Code of 1860, or not, emerged.

The appellant’s involvement in the attack seemed questionable, so the bench of Justices I Banerjee, M M Shantanagoudar, and N Ramana noted that she could not be regarded as a member of the unlawful assembly due to the absence of a shared goal among the members, which has historically been the primary requirement of an unlawful assembly. The Apex Court went on to clarify that Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not consider a person who is just present in an unlawful assembly to be a member of the assembly due to the obvious aim behind the statute controlling unlawful assembly. As a result, the Court dismissed the possibility that the appellant would face charges related to the unlawful assembly crime in this instance.

• Gadadhar Guru and Anr. v. State of Orissa (1989)

In the 1989 case Gadadhar Guru and Anr. v. the State of Orissa, which was heard by the Orissa High Court, the issues at hand were Sections 159 and 160, which deal with affray and its punishment, respectively. The Court outlined three requirements that constitute the core of affray, declaring that an affray offence cannot occur until these requirements are met. These requirements are as follows:

1. Two or more people involved in a fight,
2. The fighting must be witnessed in a public place, and
3. The consequence of such fighting must cause disturbance of public peace.

The first two requirements of the charge of affray were met in this instance, but no proof was found to support the third requirement of the crime. As a result, the petitioner was released from the affray allegation.

• State v. Faisal Farooq (2020)

The case of State v. Faisal Farooq (2020) brought before the Delhi High Court was based on the Delhi Riots incident. The respondent in the present case who being an educationalist was involved in educating different sections of the population, and managing several schools, was arrested under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including Section 153 A and Section 155 on grounds of he being a part of the rioting, without any proper investigation. For such illegal action, the respondent sought redressal. Observing that no prima facie case could be made out against the respondent in the present instance, and the illegal and mala fide actions taken by the police officers without thorough investigation could not be responsible for holding the respondent under the concerning provisions. Hence bail was granted to the same.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, preserving peace and tranquillity within society forms the bedrock upon which societal progress rests. Offences against public tranquillity, such as rioting, unlawful assembly, affray, and promoting enmity between different groups, pose a significant threat to this peace. The state, through legal provisions like those outlined in the Indian Penal Code, holds the responsibility to maintain public order and punish offenders who disturb the peace.

These offences, as defined under Sections 141 to 160 of the IPC, encompass a wide range of actions aimed at disrupting public tranquillity. The penalties for these offences vary, reflecting the severity of the crime committed. From imprisonment to fines, the legal system provides a framework to deal with individuals or groups that attempt to disturb the peaceful fabric of society.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that societal progress and individual growth are intricately linked to the maintenance of peace and order. When peace is disrupted, opportunities for personal development are stifled, hindering the advancement of the entire community. Upholding public tranquillity is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative, ensuring a harmonious environment wherein every individual can thrive.

In essence, the strict enforcement of laws against offences against public tranquillity is vital for fostering a society where individuals can coexist peacefully, work towards their goals, and contribute positively to the community at large. By deterring and penalising actions that disturb public peace, nations pave the way for a more secure, prosperous, and progressive future for all its citizens.

References:

• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal. Indian Penal Code
• Thomas, K.T. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code
• Tamilarasan, R. Law Relating to Public Nuisance

---

^[1] Nishtha Pandey, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Ipleaders, 2019

^[2] Sahiba, Offences Against Public Tranquillity Under Indian Penal Code 1860, Adda247, 2023

^[3] Hitarth Dixit, Offences Against Public Tranquillity: Rioting and Affray, Legal Service India

^[4] Offences Against Public Tranquillity under IPC, LawBhoomi, 2023

^[5]  Offences Against Public Tranquillity under IPC, LawBhoomi, 2023

^[6] Nishtha Pandey, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Ipleaders, 2019

^[7] Nishtha Pandey, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Ipleaders, 2019

^[8] Sahiba, Offences Against Public Tranquillity Under Indian Penal Code 1860, Adda247, 2023