- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 198: Public Servant Disobeying Law, with Intent to Cause Injury to Any Person
Introduction
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law governing how he is required to conduct himself in his official capacity, where he does so either:
- Intending to cause injury to any person, or
- Knowing that such injury is likely to result from the disobedience.
The provision therefore does not punish every error, irregularity, or breach committed by a public servant. It contains important requirements relating both to knowledge of the disobedience and to intended or likely injury.
The supplied illustration demonstrates the basic idea: an officer who is legally required to take property in execution of a decree knowingly refuses to follow that legal direction, knowing that the decree-holder is likely to suffer injury.
Core Formula
PUBLIC SERVANT + DIRECTION OF LAW GOVERNING OFFICIAL CONDUCT + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE + INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY = SECTION 198
Q1. What does Section 198 punish?
Answer:
Section 198 punishes a person who:
- Is a public servant;
- Is subject to a direction of law governing the way in which he must conduct himself as a public servant;
- Knowingly disobeys that direction;
- Does so:
- Intending to cause injury to any person; or
- Knowing that injury is likely to be caused by the disobedience.
Q2. What is the object of Section 198?
Answer:
The provision protects persons against deliberate misuse or disregard of legal duties by public servants.
A public servant is entrusted with legal powers and responsibilities. Section 198 seeks to ensure that such a person does not deliberately depart from the law in order to injure another person, or despite knowing that injury is likely.
Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 198 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 198 BNS = Section 166 IPC
Q4. Has Section 198 materially changed from the IPC provision?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED
and:
THE PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED AS IT IS
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 198?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- The accused is a public servant;
- There is a direction of law concerning how he is to conduct himself as such public servant;
- He knowingly disobeys that direction;
- He intends thereby to cause injury to any person; or
- He knows that such disobedience is likely to cause injury to any person.
Formula
PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL DIRECTION + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE + INJURY INTENT/LIKELIHOOD = SECTION 198
Q6. Who can commit the offence under Section 198?
Answer:
Only a:
PUBLIC SERVANT
can commit the offence.
It is therefore a special or status-based offence.
Q7. Is public-servant status alone enough?
Answer:
No.
The public servant must also be subject to a:
DIRECTION OF LAW
governing how he is required to conduct himself in his official capacity.
Q8. What does “as such public servant” signify?
Answer:
It links the legal direction to the accused’s official capacity.
The relevant duty must concern the way in which he is required by law to act:
AS A PUBLIC SERVANT
A purely private obligation would not, merely because the person happens to be a public servant, satisfy this ingredient.
Q9. Must there be a direction of law?
Answer:
Yes.
This is a fundamental ingredient.
The provision does not merely punish failure to follow informal preferences or personal expectations. The public servant must disobey:
A DIRECTION OF THE LAW
Q10. Is breach of an informal instruction sufficient?
Answer:
Not merely on the supplied wording.
The statutory requirement is:
DISOBEDIENCE OF A DIRECTION OF LAW
Therefore, the legal source of the duty is important.
Q11. What must the direction of law concern?
Answer:
It must concern:
THE WAY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVANT IS TO CONDUCT HIMSELF AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT
Q12. Is every official irregularity an offence under Section 198?
Answer:
No.
Section 198 requires much more than irregularity.
The prosecution must establish:
- A legal direction;
- Knowing disobedience; and
- Intent to cause injury or knowledge of likely injury.
Q13. What does “knowingly disobeys” require?
Answer:
It requires conscious disobedience.
The public servant must knowingly depart from the legal direction.
Memory
ACCIDENTAL BREACH ≠ KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE
Q14. Is accidental non-compliance sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The section expressly requires:
KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE
Q15. Is mere negligence sufficient?
Answer:
Not on the supplied wording alone.
Mere carelessness does not automatically establish that the public servant:
KNOWINGLY DISOBEYED
the law.
Q16. Is an honest mistake about what the law requires automatically an offence?
Answer:
No.
The prosecution must establish the statutory requirement of knowing disobedience.
An honest mistake may therefore affect whether this element is proved.
Q17. Is knowing disobedience alone enough?
Answer:
No.
There must also be the required mental element concerning injury.
The public servant must either:
INTEND TO CAUSE INJURY
or:
KNOW THAT INJURY IS LIKELY
Q18. What are the two alternatives regarding injury?
Answer:
The provision gives two alternatives:
- Intention to cause injury; or
- Knowledge that injury is likely to result.
Memory
INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE
Q19. Must both intention and knowledge be proved?
Answer:
No.
They are alternatives.
Either may satisfy the section.
Q20. What is the first injury-related mental state?
Answer:
The public servant:
INTENDS TO CAUSE INJURY
through the disobedience.
Q21. What is the second injury-related mental state?
Answer:
The public servant:
KNOWS IT TO BE LIKELY
that his disobedience will cause injury.
Q22. Must actual injury ultimately occur?
Answer:
The supplied wording does not make actual injury an express requirement.
The section focuses upon:
- Intent to cause injury; or
- Knowledge that injury is likely.
Therefore, the mental element concerning injury is central.
Q23. Does the provision refer to injury to a particular category of person?
Answer:
No.
It broadly states:
ANY PERSON
Q24. Must the injured person be the Government?
Answer:
No.
The section refers to injury to:
ANY PERSON
Q25. Must the public servant obtain personal benefit?
Answer:
No.
Personal benefit is not an express ingredient.
Q26. Must wrongful gain be proved?
Answer:
No.
Wrongful gain is not stated as an essential requirement.
Q27. Must bribery or corruption be proved?
Answer:
No.
Section 198 does not require proof of bribery, payment, or corrupt benefit.
The central conduct is knowing disobedience of law with the required injury-related mens rea.
Q28. Must dishonesty be separately proved?
Answer:
The section does not expressly use “dishonestly.”
Instead, its mental requirements are:
KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE
and:
INTENT TO INJURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY
Q29. Must fraudulent intention be proved?
Answer:
No separate requirement of fraud appears in the supplied wording.
Q30. Does Section 198 require abuse of a particular official power?
Answer:
Not necessarily in those words.
The section is framed broadly around disobedience of a legal direction regulating:
THE WAY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVANT IS TO CONDUCT HIMSELF
Q31. What does the illustration to Section 198 show?
Answer:
The illustration concerns:
- A, an officer;
- A legal direction requiring A to take property in execution;
- The execution is intended to satisfy a decree in favour of Z;
- A knowingly disobeys the direction;
- A knows that his disobedience is likely to cause injury to Z.
The illustration states that:
A HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 198
Q32. What legal duty exists in the illustration?
Answer:
A is:
DIRECTED BY LAW TO TAKE PROPERTY IN EXECUTION
The legal duty therefore concerns execution of a Court decree.
Q33. Who is likely to suffer injury in the illustration?
Answer:
Z
who is the person in whose favour the decree has been pronounced.
Q34. Why does A incur liability in the illustration?
Answer:
Because A:
- Is an officer acting in an official capacity;
- Is legally directed to take the property;
- Knowingly disobeys the legal direction;
- Knows that this is likely to cause injury to Z.
Q35. Does the illustration require A to personally gain anything?
Answer:
No.
No personal gain is mentioned.
This reinforces that Section 198 does not depend upon financial benefit to the public servant.
Q36. Does the illustration require Z to bribe or pay A?
Answer:
No.
Bribery is irrelevant to the statutory illustration.
The focus is knowing disobedience and likely injury.
Q37. What does the illustration teach about “knowledge of likely injury”?
Answer:
It demonstrates that liability does not depend only on a positive purpose to injure.
It is enough if the public servant knows that injury is:
LIKELY TO RESULT
from his deliberate disobedience.
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 198?
Answer:
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR
or:
FINE
or:
BOTH
Q39. What type of imprisonment is provided?
Answer:
The section specifically provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q40. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
1 YEAR
Q41. Is there a mandatory minimum imprisonment?
Answer:
No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.
Q42. Is a numerical maximum fine stated?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording simply states:
FINE
No specific monetary ceiling has been provided.
Q43. Can fine be imposed without imprisonment?
Answer:
Yes.
The punishment is:
SI UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Q44. What is the classification of Section 198?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Q45. What is the classification memory formula?
Answer:
198 = NC + B + MFC
Q46. How does Section 198 differ from Section 199?
Answer:
This is a very important comparison.
Section 198
Creates a broader offence where a public servant:
- Knowingly disobeys a direction of law concerning official conduct;
- With intent to cause injury or knowledge that injury is likely.
Section 199
Deals with specific investigative misconduct, including:
- Illegal attendance requirements;
- Knowing breach of investigation procedure causing prejudice;
- Failure to record specified information under Section 173(1) BNSS.
Memory
198 = GENERAL OFFICIAL DISOBEDIENCE + INJURY
199 = SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION-RELATED DISOBEDIENCE
Q47. What is the easiest distinction between Sections 198 and 199?
Answer:
198 = GENERAL LEGAL DUTY OF PUBLIC SERVANT
199 = INVESTIGATION-SPECIFIC DUTIES
Q48. How do their injury-related requirements differ?
Answer:
Section 198
Expressly requires:
INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY
Section 199(a)
No separate prejudice requirement is expressly stated.
Section 199(b)
Expressly requires:
PREJUDICE TO ANY PERSON
Section 199(c)
Focuses on failure to record specified information.
Q49. How do their punishments differ?
Answer:
Section 198
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Section 199
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT 6 MONTHS MINIMUM TO 2 YEARS + FINE
Thus, Section 199 carries the more severe punishment.
Q50. How do their classifications differ?
Answer:
Section 198
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MFC
Section 199
COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MFC
Memory
198 = NC
199 = C
Both are bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Q51. How does Section 198 differ from Section 201?
Answer:
Section 198
Deals generally with knowing disobedience of legal directions governing official conduct with intent or knowledge concerning injury.
Section 201
Deals specifically with a public servant who knowingly or believingly prepares or translates an incorrect document or electronic record with intent or knowledge of likely injury.
Memory
198 = DISOBEY LAW
201 = MAKE RECORD WRONG
Q52. Can Section 198 concern omission rather than a positive act?
Answer:
Potentially yes, because disobedience of a direction of law may consist of failing to perform something which the law directs the public servant to do.
The supplied illustration itself involves failure to carry out a legally directed act.
Q53. Why is the illustration important on this point?
Answer:
Because A is legally required to take property in execution but knowingly fails to act in accordance with the direction.
Thus:
DELIBERATE NON-PERFORMANCE OF A LEGALLY REQUIRED OFFICIAL ACT MAY AMOUNT TO DISOBEDIENCE
Q54. Is every failure by a public servant to perform a duty an offence under Section 198?
Answer:
No.
One must still prove:
- A direction of law;
- Knowing disobedience;
- Intention to cause injury or knowledge that injury is likely.
Q55. Is delay automatically an offence?
Answer:
No.
Delay by itself does not establish all the statutory ingredients.
The relevant questions would include whether the delay amounted to knowing disobedience of a legal direction and whether the required injury-related mens rea existed.
Q56. What is the most important first question in a Section 198 problem?
Answer:
Ask:
WHAT DIRECTION OF LAW GOVERNED THE PUBLIC SERVANT’S OFFICIAL CONDUCT?
Without identifying such a direction, Section 198 cannot properly be established.
Q57. What is the second question?
Answer:
Ask:
DID THE PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWINGLY DISOBEY THAT DIRECTION?
Q58. What is the third question?
Answer:
Ask:
DID HE INTEND TO CAUSE INJURY OR KNOW THAT INJURY WAS LIKELY?
Q59. What is the best problem-question method?
Answer:
Proceed in this order:
- Is the accused a public servant?
- What direction of law governed his official conduct?
- What conduct did the law require or prohibit?
- Did the accused disobey it?
- Was the disobedience knowing?
- Did he intend to cause injury?
- Alternatively, did he know injury was likely?
If the necessary ingredients are established:
SECTION 198 MAY APPLY
Q60. What are the key statutory words?
Answer:
PUBLIC SERVANT
KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS
DIRECTION OF THE LAW
WAY IN WHICH HE IS TO CONDUCT HIMSELF
AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT
INTENDING TO CAUSE INJURY
KNOWING IT TO BE LIKELY
ANY PERSON
Q61. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?
Answer:
PUBLIC SERVANT + KNOWINGLY BREAKS OFFICIAL LAW + INTENDS/EXPECTS INJURY = SECTION 198
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Special Offender
The accused must be:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
2. A Direction of Law Is Essential
There must be a legal direction governing:
HOW THE PUBLIC SERVANT MUST CONDUCT HIMSELF
in his official capacity.
3. Disobedience Must Be Knowing
The statute expressly states:
KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS
Therefore, accidental or merely inadvertent non-compliance is not enough.
4. A Second Mental Element Is Required
Knowing disobedience alone does not complete the offence.
The accused must also:
INTEND TO CAUSE INJURY
or:
KNOW INJURY IS LIKELY
5. Actual Injury Is Not Expressly Required
The statutory focus is on:
INTENDED OR LIKELY INJURY
6. The Victim May Be Any Person
The section is not limited to injury to Government or another public servant.
7. Financial Motive Is Unnecessary
The section does not expressly require:
- Bribery;
- Wrongful gain;
- Financial loss;
- Corrupt payment.
Two-Layer Mens Rea
Section 198 contains two important mental components.
First Layer — Disobedience
KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS THE LAW
Second Layer — Injury
INTENDS INJURY
or
KNOWS INJURY IS LIKELY
Memory Formula
KNOWING BREACH + HARM PURPOSE/KNOWLEDGE
Illustration Explained
The supplied illustration can be reduced to the following steps:
Step 1 — Official Position
A is an officer.
Step 2 — Legal Direction
The law directs A to take property in execution of a decree.
Step 3 — Beneficiary
The decree has been pronounced in Z’s favour.
Step 4 — Knowing Disobedience
A knowingly refuses to follow that legal direction.
Step 5 — Knowledge of Injury
A knows that the disobedience is likely to injure Z.
Result
A COMMITS SECTION 198
Illustration Memory
EXECUTION DUTY + KNOWING REFUSAL + LIKELY INJURY TO DECREE-HOLDER = 198
Punishment Notes
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR
or:
FINE
or:
BOTH
No numerical maximum fine has been supplied.
Classification Notes
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Memory
198 = NC + B + MFC
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 198 BNS = SECTION 166 IPC
The language remains unchanged and:
THE PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED AS IT IS
Section 198 vs Section 199
Section 198 — General Official Disobedience
The ingredients are:
DIRECTION OF LAW + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE + INTENDED/LIKELY INJURY
Section 199 — Specific Investigation Misconduct
The provision deals particularly with:
- Illegal attendance requirements;
- Investigation procedures;
- Failure to record specified information.
Best Memory
198 = GENERAL DISOBEDIENCE
199 = INVESTIGATION DISOBEDIENCE
Section 198 vs Section 201
Section 198
KNOWINGLY DISOBEY OFFICIAL LAW TO CAUSE/LIKELY CAUSE INJURY
Section 201
KNOWINGLY MAKE/TRANSLATE OFFICIAL RECORD INCORRECT TO CAUSE/LIKELY CAUSE INJURY
Best Memory
198 = WRONG CONDUCT
201 = WRONG RECORD
Quick Revision Notes
Section
198 BNS
Title
Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person
IPC Equivalent
Section 166 IPC
Special Offender
Public servant
First Requirement
Direction of law regarding official conduct.
Act
Knowingly disobeys
Injury Mens Rea
- Intends to cause injury; or
- Knows injury is likely.
Actual Injury Required?
Not expressly.
Punishment
Simple imprisonment up to 1 year / fine / both
Classification
NC + B + MFC
BNS Change
None identified in supplied comments; provision retained as it is.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Every breach of duty by a public servant is Section 198
Incorrect.
There must be:
A DIRECTION OF LAW
plus the required mens rea.
Trap 2 — Negligence alone is sufficient
Incorrect.
The statute requires:
KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE
Trap 3 — Knowing disobedience alone is sufficient
Incorrect.
There must additionally be:
INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY
Trap 4 — Actual injury must always result
Not expressly.
The provision focuses on intention or knowledge of likely injury.
Trap 5 — Financial benefit to the public servant must be shown
Incorrect.
No such requirement appears.
Trap 6 — Only positive acts can amount to disobedience
Incorrect as a general assumption.
The illustration shows that failure to perform a legally required official act can amount to the relevant disobedience.
Trap 7 — Section 198 and Section 199 are identical
Incorrect.
198 = GENERAL OFFICIAL DISOBEDIENCE + INJURY MENS REA
199 = SPECIFIED INVESTIGATIVE MISCONDUCT
Trap 8 — Section 198 provides rigorous imprisonment
Incorrect.
It specifically provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Trap 9 — Section 198 is cognizable
Incorrect.
The supplied classification is:
NON-COGNIZABLE
Trap 10 — Section 198 is non-bailable
Incorrect.
It is:
BAILABLE
Trap 11 — The BNS substantially altered Section 166 IPC
According to the supplied comments, no.
The provision has been retained unchanged.
High-Yield Sequence: Sections 198–206
198 = PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWINGLY 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/BIDS
204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT
205 = WEAR PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB/TOKEN
206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE
Memory Chain
DISOBEY → INVESTIGATE → TREAT → RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 198
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
DIRECTION OF LAW GOVERNING OFFICIAL CONDUCT
+
KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE
+
INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY
or
KNOWLEDGE THAT INJURY IS LIKELY
= SECTION 198
Punishment Memory
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR
OR FINE
OR BOTH
Classification
NC + B + MFC
Key Takeaway
Section 198 BNS is a general provision dealing with deliberate disobedience of law by a public servant where that disobedience is accompanied by an intention to cause injury or knowledge that injury is likely.
The offence contains two mental layers:
1. KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE OF LAW
and
2. INTENT TO INJURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY
The supplied illustration reinforces this principle: an officer who knowingly refuses to execute a legally required act, knowing that the person entitled to the benefit of that act is likely to suffer injury, commits the offence.
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 198 BNS = SECTION 166 IPC
and the provision has been retained unchanged.
Final Memory Line
“198 = PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWINGLY BREAKS THE LAW OF HIS OFFICE SO THAT SOMEONE IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO BE INJURED.”
