Home  /  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita  /  Section 214

Section 214: Refusing to Answer Public Servant Authorised to Question

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita • Chapter XI: Of Offences by or Relating to Public Servants • Official Statutory Text & Legal Guide

Chapter XI: Of Offences by or Relating to Public Servants
Court in which offence committed / Any Magistrate
Bailable
Non-Cognizable
Formerly Sec 179 IPC
Section 213 All 358 Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 215

BNSS First Schedule Legal Classification

Procedural Trial, Bail & Arrest Mandate under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Official BNSS Schedule I
Offence / Provision Statutory Punishment Bail Status Cognizance Trial Jurisdiction Old IPC Equivalent
Section 214 BNS
Refusing to Answer Public Servant Authorised to Question
 Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both. Bailable Non-Cognizable Court in which offence committed / Any Magistrate Formerly Sec 179 IPC
Statutory classification established under the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Governs all FIR registrations, bail hearings, and criminal trial jurisdictions in Indian courts.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 214

Section 214 penalises refusing to answer any question demanded by a public servant authorised to question, where the person is legally bound to state the truth.

  • Authorised Interrogator: The public servant is legally empowered to question the person on the subject matter.
  • Legal Obligation to Answer: The person is under a legal obligation to answer truthfully.
  • Refusal to Answer: Unjustified refusal to answer questions, excluding questions that expose the person to a criminal charge.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424: The Apex Court ruled that an accused or witness has a constitutional right of silence against questions that have a tendency to expose them to a criminal charge or forfeiture.
  • Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263: The Constitution Bench reaffirmed that no person can be compelled to answer questions or undergo involuntary neuro-scientific tests violating Article 20(3).
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Raise the shield of Article 20(3) whenever questions tend towards self-incrimination. The prosecution must show that the question was benign, strictly factual, and within the statutory investigative remit.

Section 213 All 358 Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 215