Sections 221 of BNS and 215 BNSS

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan  has held that 'obstruction' under Section 186 of the IPC is not limited to physical force and includes any unlawful act—such as threats, intimidation, or non-cooperation—that hinders a public servant from discharging their lawful duties. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Devendra Kumar v. the State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Devendra Kumar v. the State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr,(2025)  ? 

• On 3rd October 2013, Process Server Ravi Dutt Sharma was assigned to serve court documents at Nand Nagri Police Station - one warrant from Magistrate Sharad Gupta and one summons from Additional District Judge Arvind Kumar to the Station House Officer. He arrived at the station around 12:30 PM to execute these official duties essential for judicial system functioning. 
• At the police station, Constable Sanjay Kumar Sharma received the court processes but improperly signed them using Head Constable Brahmjeet's name instead of his own. When the Process Server objected to this procedural violation, the Constable struck off his signatures and took the documents to the SHO's Reader, who refused to receive them. The Duty Officer also refused to accept the legal documents, forcing the Process Server to approach SHO Inspector Devendra Kumar directly. 
• When the Process Server explained the situation to SHO Devendra Kumar, the officer allegedly kept the court processes but began verbally abusing him with harsh language. The SHO then ordered him to stand with hands raised for approximately 30 minutes as punishment, followed by making him sit on the floor for 3-4 hours. Despite repeated requests to leave for other pending court work, the SHO refused permission, unlawfully detaining him until 4:30 PM when a Head Constable arrived and finally accepted the processes with proper receipt. 
• The Process Server filed a complaint with the District and Sessions Judge of Shahdara, alleging voluntary obstruction in discharge of his public functions. The District Judge assigned it to the Administrative Civil Judge, who lodged a private complaint under Section 195 CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On 28th November 2013, the Magistrate ordered FIR registration against SHO Devendra Kumar under Sections 186 and 341 IPC, directing investigation by an ACP-rank officer. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that 'obstruction' under Section 186 IPC encompasses much broader meaning than mere physical obstruction and includes any act making it difficult for public servants to perform lawful duties. This can include threats, show of force, or any impediment preventing proper discharge of official functions. The Court emphasized that while 'voluntarily' indicates some overt act of obstruction, it doesn't require actual criminal force or violent conduct. 
• The Court made crucial observations that Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC creates an absolute mandatory bar against courts taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172-188 IPC. No court can take cognizance except upon written complaint by the concerned public servant or administrative superior. These provisions are mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates entire prosecution, rendering consequential orders void ab initio. 
• The Court noted the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate committed serious procedural error by directing police investigation under Section 156(3) instead of directly taking cognizance on the written complaint. For Section 186 IPC cases with proper written complaints from judicial authorities, Magistrates should take cognizance and issue process under Section 204 CrPC. 
• Regarding splitting offences, the Court held that if an offence falls within Section 195 CrPC coverage, charges cannot be split to proceed only with uncovered offences. Courts must apply twin test: whether distinct offences were invoked to evade Section 195's bar, and whether facts primarily disclose offences requiring court/public servant complaint. 
• The Court distinguished that Section 195 CrPC doesn't control police investigation power but only bars court cognizance without proper complaint. The bar operates when courts intend taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC, not during investigation. The Court expressed concern about twelve-year litigation duration when proper procedures could have resolved the matter in three months, noting the irony that improper procedural approach undermined rather than upheld court dignity. 

Explain Sections 221 of BNS and 215 BNSS? 

BNS Section 221: Obstructing Public Servant in Discharge of Public Functions 

• Legal Provision: Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes voluntarily obstructing any public servant while they are performing their official duties. Any person who intentionally interferes with or prevents a public servant from carrying out their lawful functions shall be punished with imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both. 
• Application: This provision applies to all public servants including police officers, government officials, inspectors, and court personnel. The obstruction must be voluntary and intentional, and the public servant must be actively engaged in their official duties at the time of interference. 

BNSS Section 215: Prosecution Requirements for Specific Offenses 

• Complaint Authority: Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires that courts cannot take cognizance of offenses under sections 206 to 223 of BNS (excluding section 209) unless a written complaint is filed by the affected public servant, their administrative subordinate or an authorized public servant. 
• Court-Related Offenses: Section 215(1)(b) mandates that offenses occurring in court proceedings under sections 229-233, 236, 237, 242-248, and 267 of BNS can only be prosecuted through written complaints filed by the concerned court or its authorized officer, or by a superior court. 
• Withdrawal Provision: Section 215(2) allows supervisory authorities to order withdrawal of complaints under subsection (1)(a), but not after trial completion. Upon withdrawal order, courts must cease further proceedings on the complaint. 

Historical and Legal Evolution 

• Previous Framework: These provisions evolved from IPC Section 186 (obstructing public servants) and CrPC Section 195 (prosecution requirements for offenses against public servants and public justice). The earlier IPC Section 186 carried similar punishment provisions but with lower fine limits, while CrPC Section 195 established comparable procedural safeguards for initiating prosecutions. 
• Key Improvements: The new framework under BNS and BNSS includes updated fine amounts (increased to ₹2,500), simplified language, and more comprehensive procedural requirements. The withdrawal mechanism has been refined to balance administrative efficiency with judicial integrity.