The recent protests by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar have sparked a debate over the use of allegedly abusive and objectionable language. Multiple FIRs were registered against the demonstrators, including a Zero FIR lodged at the Expressway Police Station in Uttar Pradesh. The FIR invokes Sections 352, 353(1), and 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that the remarks were intended to spread hatred and disrupt public peace.
The case raises a recurring legal question: Is using abusive language, by itself, a criminal offence in India? The BNS does not criminalise abusive language as a standalone offence. Whether abusive speech amounts to a crime depends on its nature, context, and consequences. Section 352 of the BNS deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, penalising intentional insults only when they are made with the intention or knowledge that they are likely to provoke the person insulted into breaking the public peace or committing another offence.
Other provisions of the BNS, such as Section 351, dealing with criminal intimidation, Section 353, criminalising statements, rumours, or false information made with the intent or likelihood of causing public mischief, and Section 356(1), dealing with criminal defamation, may also apply in cases involving abusive language. Additionally, where abusive words, gestures, sounds, or acts are directed at a woman with the intention of insulting her modesty, Section 79 of the BNS may be attracted.
The courts have consistently held that criminal liability depends not on the mere use of offensive or vulgar language, but on whether the statutory ingredients of the offence are satisfied in the facts of each case. In State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud (2026), the Supreme Court upheld operational guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court for police authorities and Judicial Magistrates dealing with criminal proceedings arising from social media posts and public speeches. The Court held that the police cannot mechanically register FIRs merely because someone finds a social media post or public speech offensive or insulting.
The Supreme Court has also drawn a distinction between obscenity and language that is merely abusive or vulgar. In Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2026), the Court held that obscenity is not synonymous with vulgarity, abuse, or profanity. The test of obscenity is whether the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, or tend to deprave and corrupt impressionable minds.
In conclusion, abusive language, by itself, is not a standalone criminal offence under the BNS. Depending on the context, however, it may attract provisions relating to intentional insult, criminal intimidation, public mischief, defamation, or offences against women. The courts have consistently held that criminal liability depends on the satisfaction of the statutory ingredients of the offence in the facts of each case.
