Woman Threatens PM Modi With Grave Harm At CJP Protest: Lawyers Explain BNS Provisions She Could Face

The ongoing CJP protest at Jantar Mantar continues to gather momentum, with social media platforms witnessing a steady stream of live updates, speeches, slogans, and videos from the demonstration site. While many clips show students voicing their concerns and demanding action from the government, several videos circulating online have drawn attention for containing inflammatory remarks and alleged calls for violence against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In one widely shared video, a protester can allegedly be heard saying, "Prime Minister Modi should be assassinated. If it were up to me, I would do it myself." In another clip, slogans such as “Modi mar jaaye, Modi ko goli maaro, Modi-Shah gunde hai, inko gundai karke bhagao” can be heard being raised by a section of the gathering.

Legal implications of calls for violence

The circulation and amplification of videos containing explicit calls for violence against a constitutional functionary have raised questions regarding potential legal consequences under Indian law.

Such statements may attract provisions including Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), or their corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deal with promoting enmity, hatred, and acts prejudicial to maintaining public harmony.

Further, Section 505 of the IPC, or its corresponding BNS provisions, criminalises statements, rumours, or reports intended to incite public disorder or create public mischief. Calls advocating violence against a public official may also invite charges relating to criminal intimidation and other offences depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Legal questions emerge over viral videos

The circulation and amplification of videos containing alleged calls for violence against a constitutional functionary have sparked debate over the legal implications of such remarks.

Some legal experts argue that statements advocating violence against the Prime Minister could attract provisions relating to incitement, criminal intimidation, public order, or other applicable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Advocate & Counsel Satyam Surana of the Bombay High Court said, "Is she linked with any particular organisation? Is she mentoring any other person? All of this can certainly be investigated and if an offence is registered under relevant sections against her then she can certainly be taken into custody. She can be prosecuted and during the course of the investigation she could be in jail. Someone has to come forward or the police can do it suo motu as well. It can be taken as waging war against the country because you are speaking about assassinating the prime minister. So if the authorities want she can certainly land herself into trouble."

Mumbai-based lawyer Amin Solkar adopted a more cautious approach, saying, "If an FIR has been filed, it is sub-judice. So, I cannot comment on it technically. If the police feel that no offence has been committed and no FIR is registered, that means it's not an offence."

Delhi High Court advocate Sharanya Tripathi said the statement, if it amounted to a call for violence against the Prime Minister, would primarily be examined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) rather than the repealed sedition law. She noted that Section 152 BNS targets acts threatening the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, and an isolated inflammatory remark may not automatically meet that threshold unless it incites violence or public disorder. "More directly applicable provisions could include Section 353 BNS relating to statements causing public mischief and Section 351 BNS on criminal intimidation, depending on the context, intent, audience, and whether the remarks constituted a genuine call to violence," she said, adding that invoking the UAPA would generally require evidence of a far higher level of organised intent or conspiracy.

Constitutional protections and differing legal interpretations

Offering a contrasting legal view, Bhargav Baisoya, Advocate at the Delhi High Court, argued that the remarks should not automatically be treated as sedition or a threat to national security.

"A woman's offhand remark to a journalist during a protest, however extreme, does not equate to sedition or a threat to national security. Under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the law targets acts that actively incite armed rebellion or imperil the sovereignty of the nation, not words uttered in the heat of the moment. As established by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, casual statements made without mens rea or imminent threat to public order cannot be criminalized. The Constitution grants citizens the freedom to express emotion and frustration; it does not require them to speak with the precision of a lawmaker," he said.

No official response yet

As of now, there has been no official statement from the government or law enforcement agencies regarding the viral videos or whether any action has been initiated against those allegedly making the remarks. Authorities are also yet to verify the authenticity, context, timing, and circumstances surrounding the clips that are circulating widely on social media.