- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 195: Assaulting or Obstructing Public Servant When Suppressing Riot, etc.
Introduction
Section 195 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes persons who assault, obstruct, threaten or attempt to use criminal force against a public servant who is performing official duties connected with:
1. Dispersing an unlawful assembly;
2. Suppressing a riot; or
3. Suppressing an affray.
The provision protects public servants who are lawfully engaged in controlling disturbances and restoring public order.
An important feature of Section 195 is that it distinguishes between actual commission of the prohibited conduct and threats or attempts.
Section 195(1) deals with actual assault, obstruction or use of criminal force.
Section 195(2) deals with threats to assault, attempts to obstruct, and threats or attempts to use criminal force.
The punishment and classification differ between the two sub-sections.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 195 BNS = Section 152 IPC
The BNS has reorganised the provision into two sub-sections and introduced a minimum fine of ₹25,000 under Section 195(1).
Q1. What is the object of Section 195 BNS?
Answer:
The object of Section 195 is to protect public servants who are performing official duties to control unlawful assemblies, riots and affrays.
The provision seeks to prevent interference with lawful measures undertaken to maintain or restore public order.
It recognises that a public servant attempting to disperse an unlawful assembly or suppress a riot or affray may face physical resistance, assault, intimidation or threats.
Section 195 therefore creates criminal liability for the specified interference.
Memory
195 = PROTECT PUBLIC SERVANT WHILE CONTROLLING UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOT OR AFFRAY
Q2. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 195 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 195 BNS = Section 152 IPC
Important Examination Distinction
Do not confuse:
• Section 195 BNS, which corresponds to Section 152 IPC; with
• Section 152 BNS, which concerns acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
The identical number 152 belongs to different provisions in the two enactments.
Q3. What is the principal change introduced under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the provision has been rephrased and rearranged into two sub-sections.
Section 195(1) separately addresses actual commission of the prohibited acts.
Section 195(2) separately addresses threats and attempts.
The punishment has also changed, particularly through the introduction of a minimum fine under sub-section (1).
Memory
195(1) = ACTUAL CONDUCT
195(2) = THREAT OR ATTEMPT
Q4. What does Section 195(1) punish?
Answer:
Section 195(1) punishes a person who:
• Assaults a public servant;
• Obstructs a public servant; or
• Uses criminal force on a public servant;
while that public servant is discharging his official duty in endeavouring to:
• Disperse an unlawful assembly;
• Suppress a riot; or
• Suppress an affray.
Q5. What does Section 195(2) punish?
Answer:
Section 195(2) punishes a person who:
• Threatens to assault a public servant;
• Attempts to obstruct a public servant;
• Threatens to use criminal force against a public servant; or
• Attempts to use criminal force against a public servant;
while the public servant is performing the specified official duties.
Q6. What is the central distinction between the two sub-sections?
Answer:
The distinction is between actual prohibited conduct and threats or attempts.
Section 195(1)
ACTUAL ASSAULT / OBSTRUCTION / USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE
Section 195(2)
THREATENED ASSAULT / ATTEMPTED OBSTRUCTION / THREATENED OR ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL FORCE
Memory
195(1) = ACT
195(2) = THREAT / ATTEMPT
Part I — Section 195(1): Actual Assault, Obstruction or Criminal Force
Q7. What are the essential ingredients of Section 195(1)?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
1. The victim is a public servant.
2. The public servant is discharging his duty as such public servant.
3. The duty concerns an endeavour to disperse an unlawful assembly or suppress a riot or affray.
4. The accused:
o Assaults the public servant; or
o Obstructs the public servant; or
o Uses criminal force on the public servant.
Formula
PUBLIC SERVANT + SPECIFIED PUBLIC-ORDER DUTY + ACTUAL ASSAULT/OBSTRUCTION/CRIMINAL FORCE = SECTION 195(1)
Q8. Who is protected under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
The protected person must be a:
PUBLIC SERVANT
who is discharging the particular official duty described in the provision.
The section is not confined by its wording to one specific designation of public servant.
However, the public servant must be performing the relevant duty in his official capacity
.
Q9. Is every assault on a public servant automatically punishable under Section 195?
Answer:
No.
Section 195 requires a connection with the public servant's duty of:
• Dispersing an unlawful assembly;
• Suppressing a riot; or
• Suppressing an affray.
An assault unrelated to those duties does not automatically satisfy Section 195 merely because the victim happens to be a public servant.
Q10. What is meant by “in the discharge of his duty as such public servant”?
Answer:
This expression requires the public servant to be acting in an official capacity.
The conduct must be connected with the performance of the relevant public duty.
Important
PUBLIC-SERVANT STATUS ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT.
There must also be the necessary connection with the specified official function.
Q11. What are the three official functions expressly protected?
Answer:
The provision identifies three functions:
1. DISPERSING AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
2. SUPPRESSING A RIOT
3. SUPPRESSING AN AFFRAY
Memory
ASSEMBLY → RIOT → AFFRAY
Q12. What is meant by dispersing an unlawful assembly?
Answer:
It refers to the official effort to break up or cause the dispersal of an assembly that is unlawful.
The provision protects the public servant while endeavouring to perform that function.
The separate statutory requirements concerning unlawful assembly must be considered where the existence of such an assembly is disputed.
Q13. What is meant by suppressing a riot?
Answer:
It refers to official action directed at controlling or stopping a riot.
The provision protects the public servant from the specified interference while undertaking that duty.
Q14. What is meant by suppressing an affray?
Answer:
It refers to official action directed at stopping or controlling an affray.
The important point is that Section 195 expressly protects public servants undertaking this function as well.
Q15. What does the word “endeavouring” indicate?
Answer:
The provision uses the expression:
“IN ENDEAVOURING TO DISPERSE AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, OR TO SUPPRESS A RIOT OR AFFRAY.”
This indicates that the public servant is protected while making the relevant official effort.
The unlawful assembly need not actually have been dispersed, or the riot or affray successfully suppressed, before the section can apply.
Memory
OFFICIAL ENDEAVOUR IS ENOUGH; SUCCESS IS NOT REQUIRED.
Q16. What are the three alternative prohibited acts under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
They are:
1. Assault;
2. Obstruction;
3. Use of criminal force.
Any one of these may satisfy the conduct element, provided the remaining statutory ingredients are established.
Q17. Must all three acts occur together?
Answer:
No.
The section uses alternatives.
It is not necessary that the accused both assault and obstruct the public servant and use criminal force.
One prohibited mode may be sufficient.
Q18. What is the significance of “assaults”?
Answer:
Assault is expressly included as an independent mode of liability.
It is therefore important not to assume that physical injury must necessarily occur.
Whether conduct constitutes assault must be determined according to the applicable statutory meaning and facts.
Q19. Must bodily injury occur for Section 195(1) to apply?
Answer:
No separate requirement of actual bodily injury appears in the supplied provision.
The section punishes the specified assault, obstruction or use of criminal force.
Actual injury may be relevant to the facts, but it is not independently stated as an essential ingredient.
Q20. What is meant by obstruction in the context of Section 195?
Answer:
Obstruction concerns interference with the public servant's performance of the specified official duty.
For example, a person may physically block a public servant from carrying out an effort to disperse an unlawful assembly.
The prosecution must establish conduct amounting to obstruction rather than merely the accused's presence at the scene.
Q21. Must the obstruction completely prevent the public servant from acting?
Answer:
The supplied wording does not expressly require the official operation to fail completely.
The relevant question is whether the accused actually obstructed the public servant in the specified duty.
Q22. Is mere presence at the scene sufficient?
Answer:
No.
Mere presence does not automatically amount to assault, obstruction or use of criminal force.
The prohibited conduct must be established.
Q23. Is verbal disagreement automatically obstruction?
Answer:
No.
A person's disagreement with official action does not, by itself, establish obstruction under Section 195.
The facts must demonstrate the statutory conduct.
Q24. What is the significance of “uses criminal force”?
Answer:
It creates another express mode of liability.
Where criminal force is used against the public servant during the specified official duty, Section 195(1) may apply.
The meaning of criminal force must be determined according to the relevant statutory definition.
Q25. Must the accused intend to prevent the entire public-order operation?
Answer:
The supplied text does not separately state that the accused must intend to defeat the whole operation.
The statutory requirements focus on the specified assault, obstruction or criminal force against a public servant performing the relevant duty.
The mental elements inherent in those prohibited acts must still be established.
Q26. Is dishonesty an essential ingredient?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly require dishonesty.
Q27. Is fraudulent intention an essential ingredient?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express element of Section 195.
Q28. Must the accused obtain any personal benefit?
Answer:
No.
The section does not require financial gain, personal advantage or other benefit.
Part II — Section 195(2): Threats and Attempts
Q29. What are the essential ingredients of Section 195(2)?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
1. A public servant is discharging the specified official duty.
2. The duty concerns dispersing an unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray.
3. The accused:
o Threatens to assault; or
o Attempts to obstruct; or
o Threatens to use criminal force; or
o Attempts to use criminal force.
Formula
PUBLIC SERVANT + SPECIFIED PUBLIC-ORDER DUTY + THREAT/ATTEMPT = SECTION 195(2)
Q30. Does Section 195(2) require actual assault?
Answer:
No.
It expressly covers:
THREATENS TO ASSAULT
Thus, the threat may fall within the provision even without a completed assault.
Q31. Does Section 195(2) require completed obstruction?
Answer:
No.
It expressly covers:
ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT
Q32. Does Section 195(2) require actual use of criminal force?
Answer:
No.
The provision covers:
• Threatened use of criminal force; and
• Attempted use of criminal force.
Q33. Is a threat to assault different from an actual assault?
Answer:
Yes.
The BNS expressly separates the two in Section 195.
However, the legal meaning of assault must still be considered carefully. Some threatening conduct may itself satisfy the statutory definition of assault.
Accordingly, the distinction cannot always be made simply by asking whether physical contact occurred.
The actual legal character of the conduct determines which sub-section applies.
Q34. Is every unsuccessful obstruction automatically an attempt under Section 195(2)?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The facts must establish an attempt to obstruct.
Mere preparation, intention or unsuccessful planning does not automatically establish a punishable attempt.
Q35. Does the section expressly punish threats to use criminal force?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision specifically states:
“THREATENS OR ATTEMPTS TO USE CRIMINAL FORCE.”
Q36. Must the public servant actually abandon the operation?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not require the public servant to abandon the attempt to disperse the assembly or suppress the riot or affray.
Q37. Why is Section 195(2) important?
Answer:
It extends protection to the specified threats and attempts before the prohibited conduct is completed.
The law therefore does not require authorities to wait until every threatened or attempted interference becomes a completed obstruction or use of force.
Part III — Punishment
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
Imprisonment of either description up to 3 years, or fine of not less than ₹25,000, or both.
Important
The minimum fine of ₹25,000 applies where a fine is imposed under sub-section (1).
The wording still permits imprisonment alone because it uses:
“OR ... OR WITH BOTH.”
Q39. What description of imprisonment is provided under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
The provision expressly states:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION
Therefore, it permits simple or rigorous imprisonment.
Q40. What is the maximum imprisonment under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
3 YEARS
Q41. Is there a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
No minimum imprisonment term is stated in the supplied provision.
Q42. What is the minimum fine under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
₹25,000
This is one of the most important changes highlighted in the supplied comments.
Q43. Is ₹25,000 the maximum fine?
Answer:
No.
The statutory wording says:
“FINE WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES.”
Therefore, ₹25,000 is the minimum, not the maximum.
No numerical maximum fine is stated in the supplied provision.
Q44. Is fine compulsory in every conviction under Section 195(1)?
Answer:
The punishment is expressed in alternatives:
• Imprisonment; or
• Fine; or
• Both.
Therefore, the provision does not expressly make a fine mandatory in every case.
However, if a fine is imposed under sub-section (1), it must not be less than ₹25,000.
Q45. What is the punishment under Section 195(2)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
Imprisonment of either description up to 1 year, or fine, or both.
Q46. What description of imprisonment is permitted under Section 195(2)?
Answer:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION
Thus, simple or rigorous imprisonment may be imposed.
Q47. What is the maximum imprisonment under Section 195(2)?
Answer:
1 YEAR
Q48. Is there a mandatory minimum fine under Section 195(2)?
Answer:
No minimum fine is specified in the supplied wording.
This is an important distinction from Section 195(1).
Q49. What is the punishment memory formula?
Answer:
195(1) = ACTUAL OFFENCE → UP TO 3 YEARS / MINIMUM FINE ₹25,000 / BOTH
195(2) = THREAT OR ATTEMPT → UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Part IV — Classification
Q50. What is the classification of Section 195(1)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Memory
195(1) = C + B + MFC
Q51. What is the classification of Section 195(2)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Memory
195(2) = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q52. What is the principal classification distinction?
Answer:
Section 195(1) is cognizable.
Section 195(2) is non-cognizable.
Both are bailable.
The trial forum also differs:
• Sub-section (1): Magistrate of the First Class;
• Sub-section (2): Any Magistrate.
Q53. Why must the two classifications be memorised separately?
Answer:
Because Section 195 does not have a single uniform classification for both forms of misconduct.
A common examination mistake is to apply the classification of sub-section (1) to sub-section (2).
Memory
ACTUAL = COGNIZABLE
THREAT/ATTEMPT = NON-COGNIZABLE
Part V — Practical Applications
Q54. Example 1: Actual assault during riot suppression
Answer:
A public servant is attempting to suppress a riot.
A person assaults the public servant during that official operation.
If the statutory ingredients are established:
SECTION 195(1) may apply.
Q55. Example 2: Actual obstruction while dispersing unlawful assembly
Answer:
A public servant is attempting to disperse an unlawful assembly.
A person deliberately blocks the public servant and thereby obstructs the operation.
Where the statutory ingredients are satisfied:
SECTION 195(1) may apply.
Q56. Example 3: Actual criminal force during suppression of affray
Answer:
A public servant attempts to suppress an affray.
A person uses criminal force against the public servant during that duty.
The conduct may attract:
SECTION 195(1).
Q57. Example 4: Threat to assault
Answer:
A public servant is performing the specified duty of dispersing an unlawful assembly.
A person threatens to assault the public servant.
If the conduct satisfies the threatened-assault limb without constituting a completed assault, it may fall under:
SECTION 195(2).
Q58. Example 5: Attempted obstruction
Answer:
A public servant is attempting to suppress a riot.
A person takes steps amounting to an attempt to obstruct the public servant, but the obstruction is not completed.
The conduct may fall under:
SECTION 195(2).
Q59. Example 6: Attempted use of criminal force
Answer:
During an official effort to suppress an affray, a person attempts to use criminal force against the public servant.
If the attempt is established:
SECTION 195(2) may apply.
Q60. Example 7: Private quarrel with a public servant
Answer:
A person quarrels with a public servant over an unrelated private dispute.
The public servant is not engaged in dispersing an unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray.
Section 195 does not automatically apply merely because one person is a public servant.
The necessary official-duty connection is absent.
Part VI — Important Comparisons
Q61. How does Section 195 differ from Section 221 BNS?
Answer:
Section 195
Deals with assault, obstruction, criminal force, threats or attempts directed at a public servant performing specified duties connected with unlawful assemblies, riots or affrays.
Section 221
Deals more generally with voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions.
Memory
195 = RIOT / AFFRAY / UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY DUTY
221 = GENERAL OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVANT
Q62. Is Section 195 more specific than Section 221?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 195 requires the special context of dispersing an unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray.
Section 221 addresses obstruction of public functions more generally.
Q63. How does Section 195 differ from Section 196?
Answer:
Section 195
Protects public servants from specified interference while controlling unlawful assemblies, riots or affrays.
Section 196
Protects harmony between different religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste or community groups.
Memory
195 = PROTECT THE PUBLIC SERVANT
196 = PROTECT INTER-GROUP HARMONY
Q64. How does Section 195 differ from Section 198?
Answer:
Section 195
The accused interferes with a public servant performing the specified public-order duty.
Section 198
The accused is himself a public servant who knowingly disobeys a legal direction governing his official conduct with intent to cause injury or knowledge of likely injury.
Memory
195 = OFFENCE AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANT
198 = OFFENCE BY PUBLIC SERVANT
Q65. How does Section 195 differ from Section 204?
Answer:
Section 195
Concerns interference with a real public servant performing specified duties.
Section 204
Concerns falsely personating a public servant and acting or attempting to act under colour of that assumed office.
Memory
195 = INTERFERE WITH OFFICIAL
204 = PRETEND TO BE OFFICIAL
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Special Public-Order Context
Section 195 applies when a public servant is endeavouring to:
DISPERSE AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
or
SUPPRESS A RIOT OR AFFRAY
The specified official-duty connection is essential.
2. Actual Offence Under Section 195(1)
Three alternative acts:
ASSAULT
OBSTRUCT
USE CRIMINAL FORCE
3. Threat or Attempt Under Section 195(2)
Four alternative modes:
THREATEN TO ASSAULT
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT
THREATEN TO USE CRIMINAL FORCE
ATTEMPT TO USE CRIMINAL FORCE
4. Actual Injury Is Not Separately Required
The supplied wording does not require proof of bodily injury as an independent element.
The prosecution must establish the relevant prohibited act and official-duty connection.
5. Successful Suppression Is Not Required
The public servant is protected while endeavouring to disperse the assembly or suppress the riot or affray.
6. Minimum Fine Under Section 195(1)
Where fine is imposed:
NOT LESS THAN ₹25,000
This minimum is not stated for sub-section (2).
7. Different Classifications
195(1) = C + B + MFC
195(2) = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Quick Revision Notes
Section 195(1)
Offence: Actual assault, obstruction or use of criminal force against a public servant performing the specified duty.
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description up to 3 years, or fine of at least ₹25,000, or both.
Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Magistrate of the First Class.
Section 195(2)
Offence: Threatened assault, attempted obstruction, threatened criminal force or attempted criminal force against a public servant performing the specified duty.
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description up to 1 year, or fine, or both.
Classification: Non-Cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate.
IPC Equivalent
Section 195 BNS = Section 152 IPC
BNS Changes
According to the supplied comments:
1. The provision has been rephrased and rearranged.
2. Actual commission is addressed separately under sub-section (1).
3. Threats and attempts are addressed separately under sub-section (2).
4. A minimum fine of ₹25,000 has been introduced under sub-section (1).
The final sentence of the supplied commentary ends before completing its explanation of the punishment for threats and attempts. The express statutory wording of Section 195(2), however, provides the applicable punishment of up to one year's imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 195 applies to every assault on a public servant
Incorrect.
The public servant must be performing the specified duty relating to an unlawful assembly, riot or affray.
Trap 2 — Section 195(1) requires actual bodily injury
Incorrect.
Actual bodily injury is not separately required by the supplied wording.
Trap 3 — Assault, obstruction and criminal force must all occur together
Incorrect.
They are alternative modes of liability.
Trap 4 — The public servant must successfully suppress the riot
Incorrect.
The word “endeavouring” is important.
Trap 5 — Section 195(2) applies only to attempted obstruction
Incorrect.
It also covers threats to assault and threats or attempts to use criminal force.
Trap 6 — Every verbal threat is necessarily outside Section 195(1)
Incorrect.
The legal meaning of assault must be considered. Certain threatening conduct may itself amount to assault.
The distinction depends on the statutory elements, not merely whether physical contact occurred.
Trap 7 — Section 195(1) and Section 195(2) carry identical punishments
Incorrect.
195(1) = UP TO 3 YEARS
195(2) = UP TO 1 YEAR
Trap 8 — ₹25,000 is the maximum fine under Section 195(1)
Incorrect.
It is the minimum fine, where a fine is imposed.
Trap 9 — A fine must be imposed in every Section 195(1) case
The statutory wording provides imprisonment, fine or both as alternatives.
The ₹25,000 minimum governs the amount where a fine is imposed.
Trap 10 — The ₹25,000 minimum also applies to Section 195(2)
Incorrect.
No such minimum is stated in sub-section (2).
Trap 11 — Both sub-sections are cognizable
Incorrect.
195(1) = COGNIZABLE
195(2) = NON-COGNIZABLE
Trap 12 — Both sub-sections are non-bailable
Incorrect.
Both are classified as bailable in the supplied material.
Trap 13 — Both sub-sections are triable only by a Magistrate of the First Class
Incorrect.
195(1) = MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
195(2) = ANY MAGISTRATE
Trap 14 — Section 195 BNS is equivalent to Section 195 IPC
Incorrect.
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 195 BNS = SECTION 152 IPC
Trap 15 — Section 195 BNS and Section 152 BNS deal with the same offence
Incorrect.
Section 152 BNS concerns acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Section 195 BNS concerns assaulting, obstructing, threatening or attempting to interfere with public servants engaged in specified public-order duties.
High-Yield Sequence: Sections 195–205
195 = ASSAULT / OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT SUPPRESSING RIOT
196 = PROMOTE ENMITY BETWEEN GROUPS
197 = IMPUTATIONS PREJUDICIAL TO NATIONAL INTEGRATION
198 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYS LAW TO CAUSE INJURY
199 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYS INVESTIGATION LAW / FAILS TO RECORD
200 = HOSPITAL NON-TREATMENT
201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY
202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES
203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS OR BIDS
204 = PERSONATES PUBLIC SERVANT
205 = WEARS PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB OR CARRIES TOKEN
Memory Chain
SUPPRESS RIOT → ENMITY → NATIONAL INTEGRATION → DISOBEY → INVESTIGATE → TREAT → RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 195(1)
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
DISCHARGING DUTY TO DISPERSE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY / SUPPRESS RIOT OR AFFRAY
+
ACTUAL ASSAULT / OBSTRUCTION / CRIMINAL FORCE
= SECTION 195(1)
Punishment
UP TO 3 YEARS / FINE NOT LESS THAN ₹25,000 / BOTH
Classification
C + B + MFC
SECTION 195(2)
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
SAME SPECIFIED PUBLIC-ORDER DUTY
+
THREATENED ASSAULT / ATTEMPTED OBSTRUCTION / THREATENED OR ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL FORCE
= SECTION 195(2)
Punishment
UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Classification
NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Key Takeaway
Section 195 BNS protects public servants who are discharging their official duties in endeavouring to disperse unlawful assemblies or suppress riots and affrays.
The section must be divided into two distinct parts.
Section 195(1) punishes actual assault, obstruction or use of criminal force. It carries imprisonment of either description up to three years, or a fine of not less than ₹25,000, or both.
Section 195(2) punishes the specified threats and attempts. It carries imprisonment of either description up to one year, or fine, or both.
The most important examination distinction is not merely the punishment, but also the classification:
195(1) = COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
195(2) = NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
According to the supplied comments, the provision corresponds to Section 152 IPC, with the BNS expressly separating actual conduct from threats and attempts and introducing the minimum fine under sub-section (1).
Final Memory Line
“195 = PROTECT THE PUBLIC SERVANT SUPPRESSING A RIOT: ACTUAL ASSAULT OR OBSTRUCTION — 3 YEARS; THREAT OR ATTEMPT — 1 YEAR.”
