Chapter 20 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Repeal and Savings)

Sections: 357 and 358

Introduction

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – BNS-2023 replaces the Indian Penal Code, which had modernized India’s criminal justice framework to address contemporary challenges while retaining the core principles of justice. The sections 357 and 358 of BNS address certain distinct offences, including insulting the modesty of a woman and mischief affecting public infrastructure or water supply, respectively. These sections corresponding to the sections 509 and 510 of IPC reflect India’s commitment to protecting individual dignity and the public welfare. This paper examines the various legal provisions, the judicial interpretations to various case laws, their relevance in 2025, particularly in the context of digital harassment and environmental concerns. The recommendations are also provided to enhance their application, ensuring an effective enforcement and societal protection.

Definition

Section 357

“Whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of any person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants, voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both”. 

The Section 357 has criminalized act intended to insult the modesty of a woman through words, sounds, gestures, objects, or privacy violations. It requires a specific intent to offend targeting acts that involve undermining a woman’s dignity or self-respect. This offense is cognizable, triable by any magistrate and compoundable with court permission. The punishment includes up to three years of simple imprisonment and mandatory fine. This section applies to both digital and physical acts and addressing modern forms of harassment.

Section 358: Mischief by Injury to Public Road, Bridge, River, or Channel

 “(1) The Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Code referred to in sub-section (1), it shall not

affect,—

1. the previous operation of the Code so repealed or anything duly done orsuffered thereunder; 

                                            or

(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Code so repealed; 

                                          or

(c) any penalty, or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed against the Code so repealed; 

                                              or

(d) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, or punishment;

                                           or

(e) any proceeding, investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed.

(3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Code shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita.

(4) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General ClausesAct,1897with regard to the effect of the repeal.”

The Section 358 has penalized mischief as defined under BNS in Section 324 that disrupts the water supply for agriculture, domestic or industrial use, or endangers any public transport such as roads, bridges, or navigable rivers and channels. The offender must act intentionally or with knowledge of likely harm. The offense is cognizable, bailable, and triable by any magistrate, and non-compoundable punishment includes up to five years of imprisonment. Either rigorous or simple, a fine or both, this section addresses the environmental and infrastructural damage which is relevant to modern nation like pollution and vandalism.

Case Laws

Section 357:

1. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995): 

The accused, who was a senior police officer, had made inappropriate gestures, which is slapping the victim’s posterior, at a social gathering with the intention to insult her modesty. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 509, now BNS Section 357, emphasizing on the fact that gestures insulting a woman’s dignity, even without physical contact, will constitute to an offense. The Supreme Court clarified that modesty relates to a woman’s sense of decency addressed contextually.

1. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010): 

The accused had made public statements about premarital sex, leading to complaints alleging to insult a woman’s modesty under the then IPC section 509. However, the Supreme Court had quashed the complaints, ruling that the statements were not directed towards any specific woman with any intent to insult. General remarks without targeted intent do not amount to violation of section 509. This clarifies that section 357 requires specific intent and direct target protecting freedom of speech while addressing the targeted harassment.

Section 358:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa: 

The accused had damaged a public bridge during a protest, which made it unsafe for commuters and was charged under IPC Section 510. The court convicted the accused, emphasizing that any act which is done knowingly that it would cause harm to any public infrastructure is a violation of the section, and will, if any actual harm does not occur. This case underscores that Section 358 applies to act with potential harm, guiding enforcement against vandalism in 2025, especially during protests and rallies.

1. Ramakant rai v. the State of Bihar (2005): 

The accused had diverted a canal’s water flow, thus reducing supply for agricultural purposes and was charged under IPC Section 510. The Patna High Court upheld the conviction and ruled that intentional destruction of water supply for essential purposes constitutes mischief under the section. Thus, this case highlights Section 350’s role in protecting water resources, which is critical in 2025 amid growing water scarcity and environmental concerns.

Recommendations:

1. Section 375: 
   • Inclusion of digital material: The amendment of section 357 should be made to explicitly mention the harassment in digital platforms which involved questioning and harming of modesty of a woman. This is done to clarify its application to online harassment given the rise of cybercrimes in 2025.
   • Awareness Campaigns: Promotion of public awareness should take place to educate people about what constitutes an insult to modesty, especially in spaces which are digital, so that people are comfortable and encouraged to report and deter the offenders.
   • Judicial training: The training of magistrates to interpret modesty contextually and considering the evolving of societal norms in digital context to ensure the application is consistent.
2. Section 358: 
   • Focus on environment: Expansion of the section should be made to explicitly include the pollution-related offences that affect water supply aligning with India’s environmental protection goals in 2025.
   • Strict Penalties: Fines should be increased or mandatory community survey should be introduced for offenses affecting public infrastructure to deter vandalism and promote restitution.
   • Inter-agency coordination: For police and environmental authority should be established to collaborate on cases involving the water supply disruptions and enhancing enforcement efficiency.

Conclusion

Section 357 and 358 of the BNS-2023 addresses critical societal issues, i.e. protecting women’s dignity and safeguarding public infrastructure and resources. Section 357 ensures that women are safe from harassment, that ensures their modesty, adapting to modern challenges such as online abuse, and Section 358 protects essential public utilities, addressing vandalism and environmental harm. The judicial presidents like Mr. Rupan Deol Bajaj and Ramakant Rai clarify the scope of these provisions, emphasizing intent and societal impact, however, to remain effective in 2025. These sections do require updates to explicitly address digital and environmental challenges alongside increased awareness and stricter enforcement. By balancing individual rights and public welfare, these provisions uphold the BNS goal of fostering a just and a secure society.

Reference 

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, India Code
• Legal interpretations from Lawrato, Vakilsearch, and KanoonGPT
• Case law sources: Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995), S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996), Ramakant Rai v. State of Bihar (2005)