Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 151
Protection against prosecution for acts done under sections 148, 149 and 150
(1) No prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 148, section 149 or section 150 shall be instituted in any Criminal Court except—
(a) with the sanction of the Central Government where such person is an officer or member of the armed forces;
(b) with the sanction of the State Government in any other case.
(2) (a) No Executive Magistrate or police officer acting under any of the said sections in good faith;
(b) no person doing any act in good faith in compliance with a requisition under section 148 or section 149;
(c) no officer of the armed forces acting under section 150 in good faith;
(d) no member of the armed forces doing any act in obedience to any order which he was bound to obey, shall be deemed to have thereby committed an offence.
(3) In this section and in the preceding sections of this Chapter,—
(a) the expression “armed forces” means the army, naval and air forces, operating as land forces and includes any other armed forces of the Union so operating;
(b) “officer”, in relation to the armed forces, means a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as an officer of the armed forces and includes a junior commissioned officer, a warrant officer, a petty officer, a non-commissioned officer and a non-gazetted officer;
(c) “member”, in relation to the armed forces, means a person in the armed forces other than an officer. B.—Public nuisances
Why this exists
Sections 148 to 150 (earlier sections 129 to 131 of the CrPC) give magistrates, police, and armed forces the power to disperse dangerous unlawful assemblies, sometimes using force. Such actions can injure or kill people, exposing officials to lawsuits or criminal charges for doing their duty. Section 151 balances two concerns: it shields officials acting honestly from being harassed with prosecutions, while still requiring government sanction before any prosecution proceeds, so genuine misuse of force is not completely immune from accountability. This mirrors long-standing colonial-era provisions meant to give law-enforcement and armed forces confidence to act firmly during riots without fear of personal liability, while keeping a check through government oversight.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 132 of the CrPC, 1973), have generally held that 'good faith' requires genuine care and honest belief that the action was necessary, not mere absence of malice. Courts have also emphasized that the sanction requirement is a threshold bar to prosecution, not a bar to filing an FIR or investigation, and that the protection under sub-section (2) is not absolute immunity but a rebuttable presumption that can be tested if the action was clearly excessive or in bad faith.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Officials who use force during a riot can never be punished.
Fact: They are protected only if they acted honestly and reasonably (in 'good faith'); the law does not shield deliberate or excessive misuse of force, and sanction for prosecution can still be granted if warranted. - Myth: Anyone can immediately file and pursue a criminal case against an officer who used force to disperse a crowd.
Fact: Courts cannot even begin such a prosecution without prior sanction from the Central or State Government, depending on who the accused is.