- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 175 - False Statement in Connection with an Election
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 175 - False Statement in Connection with an Election
Introduction
Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with false statements made or published in connection with an election.
The provision addresses a particular form of electoral misconduct: the deliberate use of false factual statements concerning the personal character or conduct of a candidate with the intention of affecting the result of an election.
Elections depend upon voters receiving information about candidates and evaluating their suitability for public office.
Public discussion of candidates may include their policies, promises, political positions, qualifications, personal character and conduct.
However, the law distinguishes ordinary political discussion from the publication of certain knowingly false factual allegations intended to influence an election result.
Section 175 is concerned with the latter category.
The provision does not criminalise every statement made during an election campaign.
It does not automatically punish criticism, political disagreement, expressions of opinion or statements that merely embarrass a candidate.
Instead, the section contains several specific requirements.
The accused must make or publish a statement purporting to be a statement of fact.
The statement must be false.
The accused must know or believe it to be false, or must not believe it to be true.
The statement must relate to the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Finally, the accused must act with the intention of affecting the result of an election.
These requirements are cumulative.
The offence cannot be properly understood by focusing only on the falsity of a statement.
The nature of the statement, the accused’s state of mind, its connection with the candidate’s personal character or conduct, and the intended effect on the election result are all important.
Section 175 is therefore narrower than a general prohibition against misleading political speech.
Its wording targets false factual statements of a particular kind, made or published with a particular electoral intention.
The punishment prescribed is fine only.
The supplied statutory text does not specify a maximum amount of fine and does not prescribe imprisonment as the substantive punishment.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 175 BNS corresponds to Section 171-G of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The commentary states that the language remains unchanged and that the provision has been retained as it was.
Central Memory Formula
FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT
- ●
KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF OF FALSITY, OR ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN TRUTH
- ●
PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT OF A CANDIDATE
- ●
INTENTION TO AFFECT ELECTION RESULT
=
SECTION 175 BNS
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 175
Q1. What does Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 175 punishes a person who, with the intention of affecting the result of an election, makes or publishes a false statement purporting to be a statement of fact concerning the personal character or conduct of a candidate, knowing or believing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true.
The punishment is fine.
Q2. What is the title of Section 175 BNS?
Answer:
The title is:
False Statement in Connection with an Election.
The title reflects the provision’s concern with the use of false factual allegations about candidates for the purpose of influencing election results.
Q3. What is the principal object of Section 175?
Answer:
The principal object is to protect the electoral process against the deliberate use of false factual statements concerning a candidate’s personal character or conduct.
The provision seeks to discourage the manipulation of electoral opinion through such allegations.
Q4. Why does the law address false statements about candidates?
Answer:
False factual allegations concerning a candidate’s personal character or conduct may influence how voters evaluate that candidate.
Section 175 addresses the deliberate use of such statements where the accused possesses the required state of mind and intends to affect the election result.
Q5. Does Section 175 prohibit all criticism of election candidates?
Answer:
No.
The section does not prohibit every form of criticism.
Its application depends on the presence of the particular statutory ingredients.
Political disagreement, expressions of opinion and criticism do not automatically constitute the offence.
Q6. Is every false statement made during an election an offence under Section 175?
Answer:
No.
The statement must satisfy the additional statutory requirements.
It must purport to be a statement of fact, concern the personal character or conduct of a candidate, be accompanied by the specified mental element, and be made or published with the intention of affecting the election result.
Q7. What is the central distinction under Section 175?
Answer:
The central distinction is between an ordinary election-related statement and a false factual statement about a candidate’s personal character or conduct made or published with the required knowledge or belief and electoral intention.
Memory Formula:
NOT EVERY FALSE STATEMENT
BUT
A FALSE FACTUAL STATEMENT ABOUT A CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT WITH THE REQUIRED ELECTORAL INTENTION
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 175
Q8. What are the essential ingredients of Section 175?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are as follows.
First — Making or publishing a statement
The accused must make or publish a statement.
Second — Statement purporting to be a statement of fact
The statement must purport to assert a fact.
Third — Falsity
The statement must be false.
Fourth — Required knowledge or belief
The accused must know the statement to be false, believe it to be false, or not believe it to be true.
Fifth — Connection with a candidate
The statement must relate to the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Sixth — Intention to affect the election result
The accused must act with the intention of affecting the result of an election.
All these requirements must be considered together.
Q9. Is making or publishing a statement an essential ingredient?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 175 expressly uses the words “makes or publishes”.
The accused must engage in at least one of these forms of conduct.
Q10. Must the statement purport to be a statement of fact?
Answer:
Yes.
This is an express requirement.
The statement must purport to assert something factual rather than merely express a personal preference or opinion.
Q11. Must the statement actually be false?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly requires a statement of fact “which is false”.
Falsity is therefore an essential ingredient.
Q12. Must the accused possess a particular state of mind concerning the statement’s truth?
Answer:
Yes.
The accused must either know or believe the statement to be false, or not believe it to be true.
Q13. Must the statement concern a candidate?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision specifically concerns statements relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Q14. Must the statement concern the candidate’s personal character or conduct?
Answer:
Yes.
This requirement is expressly stated.
It is not sufficient merely to show that the statement concerns an election in a broad sense.
Q15. Must the accused intend to affect the election result?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision begins with the words “with intent to affect the result of an election”.
This intention is a central ingredient.
Q16. Must the election result actually be affected?
Answer:
No.
The statute requires an intention to affect the result.
It does not expressly require proof that the result was actually changed.
Q17. Must the accused personally benefit from the false statement?
Answer:
No.
Personal financial or political benefit is not an express ingredient.
The relevant requirement is the intention to affect the election result.
Part III — Meaning of Making or Publishing a Statement
Q18. What does it mean to make a statement?
Answer:
Making a statement involves expressing or asserting something.
Under Section 175, the statement must satisfy the further requirements concerning factual character, falsity, the candidate’s personal character or conduct, the accused’s knowledge or belief, and electoral intention.
Q19. What does it mean to publish a statement?
Answer:
Publishing a statement generally involves communicating or making it available to others.
Section 175 expressly includes publication as a form of prohibited conduct.
Q20. Does Section 175 cover only the person who originally invents a false statement?
Answer:
No.
The provision refers to whoever “makes or publishes” the statement.
A person who publishes a false statement may fall within the provision even if another person originally formulated it.
The required statutory mental elements must still be established against that person.
Q21. Can republication be relevant?
Answer:
Potentially, yes.
Because the provision covers publication, repeating or communicating a statement created by someone else may be relevant.
However, the prosecution must establish the falsity of the statement, its subject matter, the accused’s required state of mind and the intention to affect the election result.
Q22. Does Section 175 expressly require publication in a newspaper?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not confine publication to newspapers.
It uses the general expression “makes or publishes”.
Q23. Does the provision expressly restrict the medium through which the statement is communicated?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not identify an exclusive medium of communication.
The legal inquiry focuses on the statutory nature and purpose of the statement rather than a particular medium.
Q24. Is the number of persons receiving the statement expressly specified?
Answer:
No.
Section 175 does not prescribe a particular minimum audience in the supplied wording.
The making or publication of the statement and the remaining ingredients must be established.
Q25. Does the accused have to be the author of the original allegation?
Answer:
No express requirement of original authorship appears in the section.
The offence may concern making or publishing the statement.
Part IV — Statement Purporting to Be a Statement of Fact
Q26. What is meant by a statement of fact?
Answer:
A statement of fact asserts something capable of being assessed as true or false.
For example, an allegation that a candidate committed a particular act on a particular occasion ordinarily purports to assert a factual occurrence.
Q27. Why is the distinction between fact and opinion important?
Answer:
Section 175 expressly requires a statement purporting to be a statement of fact.
An opinion, preference or political judgment does not automatically satisfy that requirement.
Q28. Is a statement that a candidate is unsuitable for office automatically covered?
Answer:
No.
A general expression that a candidate is unsuitable for office may be a political opinion or evaluation.
It does not automatically constitute a false statement of fact concerning personal character or conduct.
Q29. Is a statement that a candidate committed a specific dishonest act potentially covered?
Answer:
Yes.
Such a statement may purport to assert a fact concerning personal character or conduct.
If the allegation is false and the remaining statutory requirements are established, Section 175 may apply.
Q30. Does calling a candidate unpopular automatically constitute the offence?
Answer:
No.
The statement must be examined to determine whether it purports to assert a false fact concerning personal character or conduct and whether the required mental elements are present.
Q31. Does the word “purporting” matter?
Answer:
Yes.
The statute is concerned with a statement presented as a factual assertion.
The use of the word “purporting” directs attention to the character in which the statement is put forward.
Q32. Is an obviously fictional statement automatically an offence?
Answer:
No.
The statutory requirement that the statement purport to be a statement of fact must be considered.
A statement clearly presented as fiction or obvious humour may not satisfy that requirement.
The surrounding circumstances remain relevant.
Q33. Can satire be relevant to Section 175?
Answer:
The section does not expressly create a separate rule for satire.
The question is whether the particular communication purports to assert a false fact about the candidate’s personal character or conduct and satisfies the remaining ingredients.
Satire should not automatically be equated with a factual allegation.
Part V — Requirement That the Statement Be False
Q34. Must the prosecution establish falsity?
Answer:
Yes.
The statement must be false.
This requirement is independent of the accused’s intention to affect the election result.
Q35. Is a true factual statement punishable merely because it damages a candidate’s electoral prospects?
Answer:
Not under Section 175 merely on that basis.
The provision expressly requires a false statement.
Q36. Can an unfavourable but true statement automatically constitute the offence?
Answer:
No.
The falsity requirement would not be established merely because the statement is unfavourable.
Q37. Is a statement punishable merely because the candidate denies it?
Answer:
No.
A candidate’s denial does not, by itself, establish that the statement is false.
The factual issue must be assessed on the evidence.
Q38. Is public controversy sufficient to prove falsity?
Answer:
No.
The fact that a statement is controversial does not automatically establish its falsity.
The statutory requirement must be proved.
Q39. Does Section 175 criminalise every factual mistake?
Answer:
No.
The statement must be false, and the accused must possess one of the specified states of mind concerning its truth.
The intention to affect the election result must also be established.
Q40. Can an inaccurate statement made with a genuine belief in its truth automatically satisfy Section 175?
Answer:
No.
A genuine belief in the statement’s truth is relevant to the mental element.
The provision requires that the accused know or believe the statement to be false, or not believe it to be true.
The complete factual circumstances must be considered.
Part VI — Knowledge, Belief and Absence of Belief in Truth
Q41. What mental elements concerning falsity are recognised under Section 175?
Answer:
Section 175 recognises three alternatives.
First: The accused knows the statement to be false.
Second: The accused believes the statement to be false.
Third: The accused does not believe the statement to be true.
These alternatives are expressly contained in the statutory wording.
Q42. What does knowledge of falsity mean?
Answer:
Knowledge of falsity means that the accused knows the factual statement is false.
Where the other statutory requirements are present, such knowledge satisfies the relevant mental element.
Q43. What does belief in falsity mean?
Answer:
Belief in falsity means that the accused believes the statement is untrue.
The provision expressly includes this state of mind.
Q44. What does “does not believe to be true” mean?
Answer:
The expression addresses a person who makes or publishes the statement without believing it to be true.
This is important because the statute is not confined to persons who possess positive knowledge of falsity.
Q45. Must the prosecution always prove positive knowledge of falsity?
Answer:
No.
The statute provides alternative mental elements.
Knowledge of falsity is one route, but belief in falsity or absence of belief in truth may also satisfy the wording.
Q46. Is mere negligence expressly identified as an independent mental element?
Answer:
No.
The section specifies knowledge, belief in falsity or absence of belief in truth.
It should not be rewritten as a general offence of negligent publication.
Q47. Does failure to verify every allegation automatically establish the offence?
Answer:
No.
Failure to verify may be relevant evidence in a particular case, but it does not automatically establish all the statutory requirements.
The prosecution must establish the required state of mind and the other ingredients.
Q48. Is the accused’s belief in the statement’s truth relevant?
Answer:
Yes.
The accused’s belief is directly relevant because the section specifies particular states of mind concerning truth and falsity.
Q49. Can a person escape liability merely by saying that someone else supplied the information?
Answer:
Not automatically.
The question is whether the person made or published the statement with the required knowledge or belief and intention.
The fact that the information originated elsewhere does not by itself resolve those questions.
Q50. Why is the phrase “does not believe to be true” an important examination point?
Answer:
Students may incorrectly assume that Section 175 requires proof that the accused positively knew the statement was false.
The statute is broader.
It also includes a person who does not believe the statement to be true.
Memory Formula:
KNOWS FALSE
OR
BELIEVES FALSE
OR
DOES NOT BELIEVE TRUE
Part VII — Personal Character or Conduct of a Candidate
Q51. What must the false statement concern?
Answer:
The statement must concern the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
This is an express limitation on the subject matter of the offence.
Q52. What is meant by personal character?
Answer:
Personal character concerns qualities or attributes associated with a person’s character.
False factual allegations of personal dishonesty or other personal misconduct may be relevant, depending on their precise nature.
Q53. What is meant by personal conduct?
Answer:
Personal conduct concerns a person’s behaviour or actions.
A false factual allegation that a candidate engaged in a particular form of personal misconduct may fall within this expression.
Q54. Is a statement about an election candidate’s political policy automatically covered?
Answer:
No.
Section 175 expressly concerns the candidate’s personal character or conduct.
A statement dealing only with a policy position does not automatically satisfy that requirement.
Q55. Is criticism of a candidate’s political programme automatically an offence?
Answer:
No.
Political criticism is not automatically equivalent to a false factual statement concerning personal character or conduct.
Q56. Can an allegation of personal dishonesty be relevant?
Answer:
Yes.
A factual allegation of personal dishonesty may concern a candidate’s personal character or conduct.
The allegation must be false, accompanied by the required mental element, and made or published with the intention of affecting the election result.
Q57. Can an allegation about a candidate’s private behaviour be relevant?
Answer:
Potentially, yes.
Where the allegation purports to assert a false fact concerning personal conduct, it may fall within the subject matter of Section 175.
The remaining ingredients must still be established.
Q58. Does Section 175 apply to statements about every person connected with an election?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording specifically refers to the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
It should not automatically be extended to every campaign worker, supporter or voter.
Q59. Why is the word “personal” important?
Answer:
The word limits the subject matter to the candidate’s personal character or conduct.
It prevents the section from being interpreted as a general prohibition against every false statement relating to political issues or election campaigns.
Q60. Is the candidate’s personal character or conduct the same as the candidate’s political programme?
Answer:
No.
The concepts are different.
The particular statement must be examined to determine whether it concerns personal character or conduct rather than merely political policy.
Part VIII — Intention to Affect the Result of an Election
Q61. What intention is expressly required under Section 175?
Answer:
The accused must act with the intention of affecting the result of an election.
This requirement is expressly stated at the beginning of the provision.
Q62. Is this intention separate from knowledge of falsity?
Answer:
Yes.
The statute contains two distinct mental requirements.
One concerns the accused’s knowledge or belief regarding the statement’s falsity.
The other concerns the intention to affect the election result.
Q63. Can knowledge of falsity alone establish the offence?
Answer:
No.
Knowledge of falsity does not eliminate the requirement that the statement be made or published with the intention of affecting the election result.
The other ingredients must also be present.
Q64. Does the accused have to intend that a particular candidate win?
Answer:
The statute requires an intention to affect the result of an election.
It does not expressly limit the offence to statements intended to secure victory for a particular candidate.
Q65. Can an intention to damage a candidate’s electoral prospects be relevant?
Answer:
Yes.
An intention to damage a candidate’s electoral prospects may be relevant to determining whether the accused intended to affect the election result.
The remaining statutory requirements must still be established.
Q66. Must the false statement actually change the election result?
Answer:
No.
Actual alteration of the result is not expressly required.
The statutory focus is on the intention to affect the result.
Q67. Must the prosecution prove that voters believed the false statement?
Answer:
No such separate requirement is expressly stated.
The offence concerns making or publishing the qualifying statement with the required intention and mental element.
Q68. Must the candidate lose votes?
Answer:
No.
Actual loss of votes is not an express statutory ingredient.
Q69. Must the candidate lose the election?
Answer:
No.
The candidate’s eventual defeat is not required by the supplied wording.
Q70. Can the offence arise even if the candidate wins?
Answer:
Yes.
The candidate’s victory does not automatically exclude liability.
The relevant question is whether the accused made or published the qualifying false statement with the intention of affecting the election result.
Q71. Is the intention to affect an election result the same as an intention to defame?
Answer:
No.
The statutory intention under Section 175 is specifically directed toward affecting the result of an election.
The provision should not be explained as though it merely reproduces the ingredients of a general defamation offence.
Memory Formula:
INTENTION TO AFFECT RESULT
NOT
PROOF THAT RESULT ACTUALLY CHANGED
Part IX — Practical Illustrations
Q72. Illustration 1 — Knowingly false allegation of personal dishonesty
Answer:
A knows that candidate B has never committed a particular dishonest act.
A nevertheless publishes a statement falsely alleging that B committed that act.
A publishes the allegation with the intention of affecting the election result.
The conduct may fall within Section 175 because the statement purports to assert a false fact concerning B’s personal character or conduct, and the required mental elements are present.
Q73. Illustration 2 — False statement intended to damage electoral prospects
Answer:
C falsely states that candidate D engaged in specified personal misconduct.
C knows the allegation is false and makes it to reduce D’s electoral support.
The conduct may fall within Section 175.
Q74. Illustration 3 — True but unfavourable statement
Answer:
E makes a true factual statement about candidate F’s personal conduct.
E hopes the statement will influence voters.
Section 175 is not established merely because the statement is unfavourable and intended to affect the election.
The statutory requirement of falsity is absent.
Q75. Illustration 4 — Political opinion
Answer:
G states that candidate H is unsuitable to hold public office.
The statement is presented as G’s political opinion rather than as a factual allegation concerning H’s personal character or conduct.
Section 175 is not automatically established.
Q76. Illustration 5 — False policy statement unrelated to personal character
Answer:
J knowingly makes a false statement concerning the contents of candidate K’s proposed policy programme.
The statement does not concern K’s personal character or conduct.
The subject-matter requirement of Section 175 is not automatically satisfied.
Q77. Illustration 6 — Honest belief in truth
Answer:
L publishes a factual allegation about candidate M’s personal conduct.
The allegation is false, but L genuinely believes it to be true.
The required mental element concerning falsity is not established merely by proving that the allegation was false.
Q78. Illustration 7 — Publication without belief in truth
Answer:
N publishes a false factual allegation about candidate P’s personal character.
N does not believe the allegation to be true and intends to affect the election result.
The conduct may fall within Section 175.
Q79. Illustration 8 — No intention to affect the election result
Answer:
R makes a false factual statement about candidate S’s personal conduct.
R knows the statement is false, but the statement is not made or published with the intention of affecting the election result.
The specific electoral-intention requirement of Section 175 is not established.
Q80. Illustration 9 — Candidate wins despite false allegation
Answer:
T knowingly publishes a false factual allegation about candidate U’s personal character with the intention of affecting the election result.
U nevertheless wins.
The candidate’s victory does not automatically exclude Section 175.
Q81. Illustration 10 — Candidate loses for unrelated reasons
Answer:
V publishes a false allegation concerning candidate W’s personal conduct, knowing it is false and intending to affect the election result.
W later loses for reasons unrelated to the allegation.
The absence of proof that the allegation caused the defeat does not automatically exclude the offence.
Q82. Illustration 11 — Repeating another person’s false allegation
Answer:
A receives a false allegation about candidate B.
A knows the allegation is false but republishes it to affect the election result.
The fact that A did not originate the allegation does not automatically exclude Section 175.
Q83. Illustration 12 — Candidate merely denies the allegation
Answer:
C makes a factual statement about candidate D’s personal conduct.
D denies the statement.
D’s denial alone does not establish that C’s statement is false.
The statutory ingredients must be proved.
Q84. Illustration 13 — False statement without the required knowledge or belief
Answer:
E publishes a false factual statement about candidate F’s personal conduct.
The evidence does not establish that E knew or believed the statement to be false or did not believe it to be true.
The mental element required by Section 175 has not been established on those facts.
Q85. Illustration 14 — Statement about a campaign volunteer
Answer:
G makes a false factual allegation about the personal conduct of H, who is a campaign volunteer but not a candidate.
Section 175 is not automatically established because the statutory subject is the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Q86. Illustration 15 — False factual allegation presented as verified
Answer:
J publishes an allegation that candidate K committed a specified act of personal misconduct.
J knows the allegation is false but presents it as an established fact to influence the election result.
The conduct may fall within Section 175.
Q87. Illustration 16 — No personal financial benefit
Answer:
L knowingly publishes a false factual allegation concerning candidate M’s personal character with the intention of affecting the election result.
L receives no payment or other personal benefit.
The absence of personal benefit does not automatically exclude Section 175.
Q88. Illustration 17 — No evidence of changed voting behaviour
Answer:
N publishes a false factual allegation concerning candidate P’s personal conduct.
N knows it is false and intends to affect the election result.
No voter is shown to have changed their vote.
Section 175 does not expressly require proof of changed voting behaviour.
Q89. Illustration 18 — Obvious fictional portrayal
Answer:
R creates an obviously fictional portrayal of candidate S.
The portrayal is not presented as a factual assertion.
The requirement that the statement purport to be a statement of fact must be examined before Section 175 can be applied.
Q90. Illustration 19 — False statement made without publication by the accused
Answer:
T makes a false factual statement about candidate U’s personal conduct with the required knowledge and intention to affect the election result.
Section 175 expressly covers making or publishing the statement.
It is therefore incorrect to assume that the accused must necessarily be proved to have performed both acts.
Q91. Illustration 20 — Political disagreement
Answer:
V strongly disagrees with candidate W’s economic policies and publicly criticises them.
V does not make a false factual allegation concerning W’s personal character or conduct.
The statutory subject-matter requirement is not established merely by the political criticism.
Part X — Punishment Under Section 175
Q92. What is the punishment under Section 175 BNS?
Answer:
Section 175 prescribes punishment by fine.
Q93. Does Section 175 prescribe imprisonment?
Answer:
No.
The supplied statutory wording prescribes fine only.
It does not prescribe imprisonment as the substantive punishment for this offence.
Q94. What is the maximum fine under Section 175?
Answer:
The supplied statutory wording states that the offender shall be punished with fine.
It does not specify a numerical maximum fine.
Therefore, no particular maximum amount should be attributed to Section 175 solely on the basis of the supplied text.
Q95. Is the fine expressly fixed at ₹5,000?
Answer:
No.
The supplied text of Section 175 does not prescribe a fixed fine of ₹5,000.
Q96. Is the fine expressly fixed at ₹10,000?
Answer:
No.
The supplied text does not prescribe a fixed fine of ₹10,000.
Q97. Can the punishment be imprisonment for three years?
Answer:
No.
Section 175 does not prescribe imprisonment for three years.
Its substantive punishment is fine.
Q98. Can the punishment be imprisonment for life?
Answer:
No.
Life imprisonment is not prescribed under Section 175.
Memory Formula:
SECTION 175 = FINE ONLY
NO SPECIFIC MAXIMUM STATED IN THE SUPPLIED SECTION
Part XI — Classification of the Offence
Q99. Is Section 175 cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 175 is non-cognizable.
Classification: Non-Cognizable.
Q100. Is Section 175 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 175 is bailable.
Classification: Bailable.
Q101. Which court is competent to try an offence under Section 175?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 175 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Q102. What is the complete classification of Section 175?
Answer:
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Q103. Is Section 175 triable by the Court of Session according to the supplied classification?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Q104. Does the bailable classification mean that the conduct is not criminal?
Answer:
No.
A bailable offence remains a criminal offence.
Bailability concerns procedural treatment, not whether the conduct is criminal.
Part XII — IPC Equivalent and Legislative Position
Q105. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 175 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, Section 175 BNS corresponds to Section 171-G of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Memory Formula:
BNS 175 = IPC 171-G
Q106. Has the language of Section 175 changed from the corresponding IPC provision?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the language remains unchanged.
Q107. Has the provision been retained as it was?
Answer:
Yes.
The supplied commentary states that the provision has been retained as it was.
Q108. Does the supplied commentary identify an increase in the fine under Section 175?
Answer:
No.
The supplied commentary does not identify an increase in the fine.
It states that the language remains unchanged and that the provision has been retained as it was.
Q109. Should a student assume that Section 175 has the same maximum fine as Sections 176 or 177?
Answer:
No.
Section 175 expressly prescribes fine without stating a numerical maximum in the supplied wording.
Sections 176 and 177 contain different punishment provisions.
The punishment of one section should not be transferred to another.
Part XIII — Comparison with Sections 176 and 177 BNS
Q110. What is the difference between Section 175 and Section 176 BNS?
Answer:
Section 175 concerns false factual statements relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate, made or published with the required knowledge or belief and intention to affect the election result.
Section 176 concerns expenditure incurred or authorised for promoting or procuring a candidate’s election without the candidate’s general or special written authority.
Principal Difference
Section 175 = False factual electoral statements.
Section 176 = Unauthorised election-promotional expenditure.
Q111. What is the difference between Section 175 and Section 177 BNS?
Answer:
Section 175 concerns false statements in connection with elections.
Section 177 concerns failure to keep legally required accounts of election expenditure.
The statutory ingredients are different.
Q112. Does Section 175 require the candidate’s written authority?
Answer:
No.
The candidate’s general or special written authority is a central issue under Section 176.
It is not an ingredient of Section 175.
Q113. Does Section 175 require failure to maintain election accounts?
Answer:
No.
Failure to keep election expenditure accounts is the subject of Section 177.
It is not an ingredient of Section 175.
Q114. Does Section 175 contain the ₹10 proviso found in Section 176?
Answer:
No.
The ₹10 expenditure proviso belongs to Section 176.
Section 175 contains no such proviso in the supplied text.
Q115. Do Sections 175, 176 and 177 have the same classification?
Answer:
According to the supplied classifications, all three offences are:
Non-cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Q116. Do Sections 175, 176 and 177 have identical punishment provisions?
Answer:
No.
All three are fine-only offences under the supplied statutory wording, but their punishment provisions are not identical.
Section 175 prescribes fine without specifying a numerical maximum in the supplied text.
Section 176 specifies a maximum fine of ₹10,000 in the supplied statutory text, although the accompanying commentary states ₹5,000.
Section 177 specifies a maximum fine of ₹5,000.
Q117. What is the easiest way to distinguish the three provisions?
Answer:
175 — FALSE FACTUAL STATEMENT ABOUT CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT.
176 — UNAUTHORISED ELECTION-PROMOTIONAL EXPENDITURE.
177 — FAILURE TO KEEP LEGALLY REQUIRED ELECTION EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS.
Part XIV — Examination-Oriented Analysis
Q118. What should be established first in a Section 175 problem question?
Answer:
The first question is whether the accused made or published a statement.
Q119. What should be examined next?
Answer:
The next question is whether the statement purported to be a statement of fact.
Q120. Why must the truth or falsity of the statement be examined?
Answer:
Because Section 175 expressly requires that the statement be false.
Q121. What should be examined concerning the accused’s state of mind?
Answer:
It must be determined whether the accused knew the statement was false, believed it was false or did not believe it to be true.
Q122. What should be examined concerning the subject matter?
Answer:
The statement must concern the personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Q123. What final intention must be established?
Answer:
The accused must have intended to affect the result of an election.
Q124. What matters should not be unnecessarily added as express ingredients?
Answer:
The following should not automatically be added:
The candidate must lose the election.
The candidate must lose votes.
The election result must actually change.
The accused must obtain personal financial gain.
The statement must appear in a newspaper.
The accused must be the original author of the allegation.
The accused must both make and publish the statement.
Q125. What is the correct structure for an examination answer?
Answer:
A complete answer should identify:
First: Making or publishing a statement.
Second: The statement purporting to be a statement of fact.
Third: The falsity of the statement.
Fourth: Knowledge of falsity, belief in falsity or absence of belief in truth.
Fifth: The connection with the candidate’s personal character or conduct.
Sixth: The intention to affect the election result.
Seventh: Punishment by fine.
Eighth: Classification as non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Ninth: The IPC equivalent, Section 171-G.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Section
Section 175 BNS.
2. Title
False Statement in Connection with an Election.
3. Nature of the Offence
Making or publishing a qualifying false factual statement concerning a candidate’s personal character or conduct with the required electoral intention.
4. Prohibited Acts
Making a statement.
Publishing a statement.
5. Nature of Statement
Must purport to be a statement of fact.
6. Falsity
The statement must be false.
7. Knowledge or Belief
The accused must know or believe the statement to be false or not believe it to be true.
8. Subject Matter
Personal character or conduct of a candidate.
9. Required Intention
Intention to affect the result of an election.
10. Actual Change in Election Result
Not an express requirement.
11. Actual Loss of Votes
Not an express requirement.
12. Personal Financial Gain
Not an express requirement.
13. Original Authorship
Not expressly required where publication is established.
14. Newspaper Publication
Not expressly required.
15. Punishment
Fine.
16. Maximum Fine
No numerical maximum stated in the supplied section.
17. Imprisonment
Not prescribed as the substantive punishment.
18. Cognizability
Non-cognizable.
19. Bailability
Bailable.
20. Trial Court
Magistrate of the First Class.
21. IPC Equivalent
Section 171-G IPC.
22. Legislative Position
According to the supplied commentary, the language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it was.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 175 BNS.
Title: False Statement in Connection with an Election.
IPC Equivalent: Section 171-G IPC.
Making a Statement Covered: Yes.
Publishing a Statement Covered: Yes.
Statement of Fact Required: Yes.
Falsity Required: Yes.
Knowledge of Falsity: One statutory alternative.
Belief in Falsity: Another statutory alternative.
Absence of Belief in Truth: Another statutory alternative.
Subject Matter: Personal character or conduct of a candidate.
Intention to Affect Election Result: Required.
Actual Change in Election Result: Not expressly required.
Actual Loss of Votes: Not expressly required.
Personal Financial Gain: Not expressly required.
Candidate Must Lose: No.
Original Author Must Be the Accused: Not expressly required.
Publication Must Be in Newspaper: No express requirement.
Punishment: Fine only.
Specific Maximum Fine in Supplied Text: Not stated.
Imprisonment Prescribed: No.
Cognizability: Non-cognizable.
Bailability: Bailable.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Language Changed from IPC: No, according to the supplied commentary.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Every false statement made during an election constitutes Section 175.
Incorrect.
All statutory ingredients must be established.
Trap 2 — The statement need not purport to be a statement of fact.
Incorrect.
The provision expressly requires a statement purporting to be a statement of fact.
Trap 3 — Every political opinion is covered.
Incorrect.
An opinion is not automatically a false factual assertion.
Trap 4 — Criticism of a candidate automatically constitutes the offence.
Incorrect.
Criticism alone is insufficient.
Trap 5 — A true statement becomes an offence merely because it damages a candidate’s prospects.
Incorrect.
Falsity is expressly required.
Trap 6 — A candidate’s denial automatically proves falsity.
Incorrect.
Falsity must be established on the evidence.
Trap 7 — The accused must always have positive knowledge that the statement is false.
Incorrect.
The statute also recognises belief in falsity and absence of belief in truth.
Trap 8 — The phrase “does not believe to be true” is irrelevant.
Incorrect.
It is an express statutory alternative.
Trap 9 — Mere negligence is expressly the only mental element.
Incorrect.
The provision specifies knowledge or belief concerning falsity and intention to affect the election result.
Trap 10 — Every failure to verify an allegation automatically establishes the offence.
Incorrect.
The statutory mental elements and other requirements must be proved.
Trap 11 — The statement may concern any political issue without limitation.
Incorrect.
It must concern the candidate’s personal character or conduct.
Trap 12 — A false statement about a campaign volunteer automatically falls within Section 175.
Incorrect.
The provision specifically concerns a candidate.
Trap 13 — Personal character or conduct is not an essential ingredient.
Incorrect.
It is expressly required.
Trap 14 — A false statement about a candidate’s policy automatically satisfies the personal-character requirement.
Incorrect.
The subject matter must be examined.
Trap 15 — The accused need not intend to affect the election result.
Incorrect.
That intention is expressly required.
Trap 16 — Knowledge of falsity alone is sufficient.
Incorrect.
The other statutory ingredients, including electoral intention, must also be established.
Trap 17 — The election result must actually change.
Incorrect.
The provision requires intention to affect the result, not proof of actual alteration.
Trap 18 — The candidate must lose the election.
Incorrect.
Electoral defeat is not an express requirement.
Trap 19 — The candidate must lose a specified number of votes.
Incorrect.
No such requirement appears in the supplied wording.
Trap 20 — The accused must obtain financial benefit.
Incorrect.
Personal financial gain is not an express ingredient.
Trap 21 — Only the original author of a false statement can be liable.
Incorrect.
The provision also covers publication.
Trap 22 — The accused must both make and publish the statement.
Incorrect.
The statutory wording uses “makes or publishes”.
Trap 23 — Publication must occur through a newspaper.
Incorrect.
No such exclusive medium is prescribed in the supplied wording.
Trap 24 — Section 175 prescribes imprisonment for one year.
Incorrect.
The supplied provision prescribes fine only.
Trap 25 — Section 175 expressly fixes the maximum fine at ₹5,000.
Incorrect.
No numerical maximum is stated in the supplied statutory wording.
Trap 26 — Section 175 expressly fixes the maximum fine at ₹10,000.
Incorrect.
No such amount is specified in the supplied text.
Trap 27 — Section 175 is cognizable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is non-cognizable.
Trap 28 — Section 175 is non-bailable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is bailable.
Trap 29 — Section 175 is triable by the Court of Session.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trap 30 — Section 175 corresponds to Section 171-H IPC.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied commentary, it corresponds to Section 171-G IPC.
Trap 31 — Section 175 and Section 176 have identical ingredients.
Incorrect.
Section 175 concerns false factual statements.
Section 176 concerns unauthorised election-promotional expenditure.
Trap 32 — Section 175 and Section 177 have identical ingredients.
Incorrect.
Section 175 concerns false statements.
Section 177 concerns failure to keep legally required election expenditure accounts.
Trap 33 — Section 175 contains the ₹10 proviso.
Incorrect.
The ₹10 proviso belongs to Section 176.
Trap 34 — The supplied commentary states that Section 175 was completely rewritten.
Incorrect.
The commentary states that the language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it was.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 175 — FALSE STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH AN ELECTION
MAKES OR PUBLISHES A STATEMENT
- ●
PURPORTING TO BE A STATEMENT OF FACT
- ●
STATEMENT IS FALSE
- ●
KNOWS OR BELIEVES IT TO BE FALSE OR DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE
- ●
CONCERNS THE PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT OF A CANDIDATE
- ●
INTENTION TO AFFECT THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION
=
SECTION 175 BNS
THREE MENTAL ALTERNATIVES CONCERNING FALSITY
KNOWS FALSE
OR
BELIEVES FALSE
OR
DOES NOT BELIEVE TRUE
SPECIAL ELECTORAL INTENTION
INTENTION TO AFFECT THE ELECTION RESULT
ACTUAL RESULT
NEED NOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE CHANGED
PUNISHMENT
FINE ONLY
NO NUMERICAL MAXIMUM STATED IN THE SUPPLIED SECTION
CLASSIFICATION
NON-COGNIZABLE
- ●
BAILABLE
- ●
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT
SECTION 171-G IPC
COMPARISON
175 = FALSE FACTUAL STATEMENTS ABOUT CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT
176 = UNAUTHORISED ELECTION-PROMOTIONAL EXPENDITURE
177 = FAILURE TO KEEP ELECTION EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS
Key Takeaway
Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes making or publishing a false statement purporting to be a statement of fact concerning the personal character or conduct of a candidate, where the accused knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true, and acts with the intention of affecting the result of an election.
The provision is not a general prohibition against every false or unfavourable statement made during an election.
Its scope is defined by the particular statutory ingredients.
The distinction between fact and opinion is important.
The statement must purport to assert a fact.
It must also be false and must concern the candidate’s personal character or conduct.
The accused’s mental state is equally important.
The provision covers knowledge of falsity, belief in falsity and absence of belief in truth.
A separate intention to affect the election result must also be established.
However, it is not necessary to prove that the statement actually changed the result or caused the candidate to lose votes.
The punishment is fine only.
The supplied statutory wording does not specify a numerical maximum fine.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 175 corresponds to Section 171-G IPC, and its language remains unchanged.
Final Memory Line:
175 = FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT + PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT OF CANDIDATE + KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF OF FALSITY OR NO BELIEF IN TRUTH + INTENTION TO AFFECT ELECTION RESULT + FINE ONLY + NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS + IPC 171-G.
