- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 213: Refusing Oath or Affirmation When Duly Required by Public Servant to Make It
Introduction
Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth when he is lawfully required to do so by a public servant who is legally competent to require that oath or affirmation.
The section is concerned with refusal at the very first stage of a legally authorised truth-telling process.
Before a person can be required to answer truthfully, sign a statement, or be punished for making a false statement under oath, there may first be a lawful requirement that he bind himself by oath or affirmation.
The central idea is:
LAWFUL REQUIREMENT TO TAKE OATH/AFFIRMATION + LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT + REFUSAL = SECTION 213
Q1. What does Section 213 punish?
Answer:
Section 213 punishes a person who:
- Is required to bind himself by an oath or affirmation;
- The purpose is to state the truth;
- The requirement is made by a public servant;
- The public servant is legally competent to require the oath or affirmation; and
- The person refuses to bind himself accordingly.
Q2. What is the object of Section 213?
Answer:
The object is to ensure compliance with lawful procedures where a person is required to undertake an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
The provision protects the authority of legally competent public servants to administer such truth-binding formalities.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 213 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 213 BNS = Section 178 IPC
Q4. Has the language changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED
The principal change concerns the maximum fine.
Q5. What change has been made to the fine?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the maximum fine has increased from:
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 213?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- The accused must be required to bind himself by an oath or affirmation;
- The oath or affirmation must be for the purpose of stating the truth;
- The requirement must be made by a public servant;
- The public servant must be legally competent to require it; and
- The accused must refuse.
Formula
OATH/AFFIRMATION TO STATE TRUTH + COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT + LAWFUL REQUIREMENT + REFUSAL = SECTION 213
Q7. What is the prohibited act under Section 213?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
REFUSAL TO BIND ONESELF BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION
when lawfully required.
Q8. Does Section 213 punish refusal to answer a question?
Answer:
No.
That is dealt with separately under Section 214.
Section 213 operates at an earlier stage.
Memory
213 = REFUSE OATH
214 = REFUSE ANSWER
Q9. Does Section 213 punish refusal to sign a statement?
Answer:
No.
That is Section 215.
Sequence
213 = REFUSE OATH
214 = REFUSE ANSWER
215 = REFUSE SIGNATURE
Q10. Does Section 213 punish making a false statement under oath?
Answer:
No.
That is the subject of Section 216.
Memory
213 = REFUSE TO TAKE OATH
216 = TAKE OATH, THEN MAKE FALSE STATEMENT
Q11. What must the person be required to do?
Answer:
He must be required to:
BIND HIMSELF BY AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION
Q12. What is the purpose of the oath or affirmation?
Answer:
The purpose must be:
TO STATE THE TRUTH
Q13. Does every oath fall within Section 213?
Answer:
No.
The section concerns an oath or affirmation by which the person is required to bind himself to state the truth.
Q14. Is an affirmation treated the same as an oath?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly covers both:
OATH
and
AFFIRMATION
Q15. Who must require the oath or affirmation?
Answer:
It must be required by:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q16. Is it enough that the person demanding the oath is a public servant?
Answer:
No.
The public servant must also be:
LEGALLY COMPETENT TO REQUIRE IT
Q17. Why is legal competence important?
Answer:
Because Section 213 does not punish refusal to comply with an unauthorised demand.
The authority to require the oath or affirmation must exist in law.
Q18. What if a public servant has no legal power to administer or require the oath?
Answer:
Then an essential ingredient of Section 213 would be absent.
Q19. Can a private person create liability under Section 213 merely by asking someone to swear an oath?
Answer:
No.
The requirement must come from a public servant legally competent to require it.
Q20. Does the section require the accused to have already made a statement?
Answer:
No.
The offence may arise before any statement is made.
The refusal is directed at the requirement to bind oneself to speak truthfully.
Q21. Does the section require the accused to have already answered questions?
Answer:
No.
Section 213 comes before the stage of answering.
Q22. Does the section require a false statement?
Answer:
No.
No false statement is necessary.
The offence lies in refusal to take the required oath or affirmation.
Q23. Does Section 213 require actual harm?
Answer:
No.
Actual injury, loss, delay, or obstruction is not expressly required.
Q24. Does Section 213 require dishonesty?
Answer:
No.
Dishonesty is not an express ingredient.
Q25. Does it require fraudulent intention?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not expressly required.
Q26. Does it require malicious intention?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not expressly required.
Q27. Does it require intention to obstruct the public servant?
Answer:
No separate intention to obstruct is expressly stated.
The core conduct is refusal when lawfully required.
Q28. Is mere hesitation enough?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
A temporary hesitation, confusion, or request for clarification is not automatically equivalent to refusal.
The facts must show a real refusal to bind oneself by oath or affirmation.
Q29. Must the refusal be verbal?
Answer:
No.
Refusal may potentially be shown by words or conduct.
Q30. Is repeated refusal necessary?
Answer:
No.
The provision does not require repeated refusals.
Q31. Must the public servant warn the person about the punishment before the offence can arise?
Answer:
No such warning requirement appears in the supplied wording.
Q32. Must the proceeding be judicial?
Answer:
The supplied text does not expressly require a judicial proceeding.
The essential requirement is that the oath or affirmation be lawfully required by a legally competent public servant.
Q33. Must the refusal occur in Court?
Answer:
No such requirement is expressly stated in the supplied text.
Q34. Can the provision apply in another lawful official setting?
Answer:
Potentially yes, provided all statutory ingredients are satisfied.
Q35. Give a simple example of Section 213.
Answer:
A public servant is legally competent to require A to take an oath or affirmation to state the truth.
A is lawfully required to do so but refuses.
Section 213 may apply.
Q36. Give an example where Section 213 would not apply.
Answer:
A public servant demands that B take an oath, but the public servant has no legal authority to require it.
B refuses.
Since the public servant is not legally competent to make the demand, Section 213 would not apply merely because B refused.
Q37. Give another example where Section 213 would not apply.
Answer:
A private individual asks B to swear that a personal promise is true.
B refuses.
That is not the situation contemplated by Section 213 because the lawful public-authority requirement is absent.
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 213?
Answer:
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Q39. Is rigorous imprisonment permitted?
Answer:
No.
The supplied provision specifically provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q40. What is the maximum imprisonment?
Answer:
6 MONTHS
Q41. What is the maximum fine?
Answer:
₹5,000
Q42. Is there a minimum sentence?
Answer:
No minimum sentence is stated in the supplied provision.
Q43. What is the classification of Section 213?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
THE COURT IN WHICH THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED
Q44. Is Section 213 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q45. Is Section 213 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q46. Which Court deals with the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
THE COURT IN WHICH THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED
Q47. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
213 = NC + B + COURT WHERE COMMITTED
Q48. How does Section 213 differ from Section 214?
Answer:
This is the most important immediate distinction.
Section 213
The person refuses:
TO TAKE THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION
Section 214
The person has a legal duty to state the truth but refuses:
TO ANSWER A LAWFUL QUESTION
Memory
213 = REFUSE OATH
214 = REFUSE ANSWER
Q49. How does Section 213 differ from Section 215?
Answer:
Section 213
REFUSE TO BIND YOURSELF BY OATH/AFFIRMATION
Section 215
REFUSE TO SIGN A STATEMENT ALREADY MADE
Memory
213 = OATH
215 = SIGNATURE
Q50. How does Section 213 differ from Section 216?
Answer:
Section 213
No oath or affirmation is taken because the person refuses.
Section 216
The person is legally bound by oath or affirmation and makes a false statement.
Memory
213 = REFUSE THE OATH
216 = TAKE THE OATH AND LIE
Q51. How do Sections 213 to 216 form a logical sequence?
Answer:
These sections can be remembered as successive stages:
213 — REFUSE TO TAKE OATH
then
214 — REFUSE TO ANSWER
then
215 — REFUSE TO SIGN
then
216 — MAKE FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH
This is an excellent revision sequence.
Q52. What is the easiest problem-question test?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was the accused required to take an oath or affirmation?
- Was it for the purpose of stating the truth?
- Was the requirement made by a public servant?
- Was that public servant legally competent to require it?
- Did the accused refuse?
If yes:
SECTION 213 MAY APPLY
Q53. What are the key statutory words?
Answer:
REFUSES
BIND HIMSELF
OATH OR AFFIRMATION
STATE THE TRUTH
PUBLIC SERVANT
LEGALLY COMPETENT
Q54. What is the core wrong under Section 213?
Answer:
The core wrong is:
REFUSING A LAWFULLY REQUIRED TRUTH-BINDING OATH OR AFFIRMATION
Q55. What is the main BNS change?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
FINE INCREASED FROM ₹1,000 TO ₹5,000
Q56. Was the imprisonment term changed?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, no change in the imprisonment term is identified.
The stated change concerns the fine.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. There Must Be a Requirement to Take an Oath or Affirmation
The accused must be required to:
BIND HIMSELF BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION
2. Purpose Must Be Truth-Telling
The oath or affirmation must be:
TO STATE THE TRUTH
3. Requirement Must Come From Public Servant
The person demanding it must be:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
4. Public Servant Must Be Legally Competent
This is indispensable.
PUBLIC OFFICE ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH
The public servant must have lawful authority to require the oath or affirmation.
5. Prohibited Act
The accused:
REFUSES
to bind himself accordingly.
6. No False Statement Required
Section 213 may be complete before any statement is made.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
OATH OR AFFIRMATION
+
PURPOSE OF STATING TRUTH
+
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
LEGAL COMPETENCE
+
REFUSAL
= SECTION 213
Punishment Notes
Section 213 provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
THE COURT IN WHICH THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
According to the supplied comments:
Section 213 BNS = Section 178 IPC
The language remains unchanged.
The important BNS change is:
FINE: ₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Section 213 vs Section 214
Section 213
REFUSE OATH/AFFIRMATION
The person refuses to bind himself to state the truth.
Section 214
REFUSE ANSWER
The person is legally bound to state truth but refuses to answer a lawful question.
Best Memory
213 = OATH
214 = ANSWER
Section 213 vs Section 215
Section 213
REFUSAL BEFORE STATEMENT PROCESS
Section 215
REFUSAL AFTER STATEMENT IS MADE
because the person refuses to sign it.
Best Memory
213 = BIND YOURSELF
215 = AUTHENTICATE YOUR STATEMENT
Section 213 vs Section 216
Section 213
The accused:
REFUSES TO TAKE OATH
Section 216
The accused:
TAKES/IS BOUND BY OATH AND THEN MAKES A FALSE STATEMENT
Best Memory
213 = NO OATH
216 = OATH + FALSEHOOD
Quick Revision Notes
Section
213 BNS
Title
Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it
IPC Equivalent
Section 178 IPC
Act
Refusal to bind oneself by oath or affirmation.
Purpose of Oath
To state the truth.
Authority
Public servant.
Special Requirement
Public servant must be legally competent to require the oath or affirmation.
False Statement Required?
No.
Question Required?
No.
Actual Harm Required?
No.
Punishment
Simple imprisonment up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Court in which offence is committed
BNS Change
Fine increased from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking every refusal to swear is Section 213
Incorrect.
The oath or affirmation must be lawfully required by:
A LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 2 — Forgetting the purpose of the oath
It must be an oath or affirmation:
TO STATE THE TRUTH
Trap 3 — Thinking public-servant status alone is enough
Incorrect.
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY COMPETENT
to require it.
Trap 4 — Requiring a false statement
Incorrect.
The offence can occur before any statement is made.
Trap 5 — Confusing Section 213 with Section 214
213 = REFUSE OATH
214 = REFUSE ANSWER
Trap 6 — Confusing Section 213 with Section 215
213 = REFUSE OATH
215 = REFUSE SIGNATURE
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 213 with Section 216
213 = REFUSE TO SWEAR/AFFIRM
216 = SWEAR/AFFIRM AND MAKE FALSE STATEMENT
Trap 8 — Requiring actual injury
Incorrect.
No actual injury or loss is expressly required.
Trap 9 — Forgetting punishment type
The imprisonment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Trap 10 — Forgetting the increased fine
According to the supplied comments:
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 213–227
213 = REFUSE OATH
214 = REFUSE ANSWER
215 = REFUSE SIGNATURE
216 = FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH
217 = FALSE INFORMATION TO PUBLIC SERVANT
218 = RESIST TAKING OF PROPERTY
219 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SALE
220 = ILLEGAL BID AT PUBLIC SALE
221 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT
222 = FAIL TO ASSIST PUBLIC SERVANT
223 = DISOBEY PUBLIC ORDER
224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
Memory Chain
REFUSE OATH → REFUSE ANSWER → REFUSE SIGN → FALSE OATH → FALSE INFO → RESIST TAKING → BLOCK SALE → BAD BID → BLOCK SERVANT → REFUSE HELP → DISOBEY → THREAT → BLOCK PROTECTION → COERCE → FALSE EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 213
LAWFUL REQUIREMENT TO TAKE OATH/AFFIRMATION
+
PURPOSE OF STATING TRUTH
+
PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY COMPETENT
+
REFUSAL
= SECTION 213
Punishment
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹5,000 / BOTH
Classification
NC + B + COURT WHERE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED
Key Takeaway
Section 213 BNS punishes a person who refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth when a public servant who is legally competent to require it lawfully demands that he do so.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 213 BNS = Section 178 IPC
The language remains unchanged, but the maximum fine has increased from:
₹1,000 TO ₹5,000
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS / FINE UP TO ₹5,000 / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + The Court in which the offence is committed
Final Memory Line
“213 = A COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT LAWFULLY REQUIRES AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO TELL THE TRUTH, BUT THE PERSON REFUSES.”
