Analysis of Section 93 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978

An Analysis of Section 93 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978: Offences Pertaining to Public Order and Decorum

Introduction

The Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter "the Act") was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of police in the Union Territory of Delhi.1 It serves as a special enactment governing various aspects of policing and public order within its jurisdiction. Among its provisions aimed at maintaining peace and public tranquility is Section 93, which penalizes certain behaviours in public spaces that are intended to, or likely to, cause a breach of the peace. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of Section 93 of the Act, examining its legislative components, judicial interpretations, and practical applications as evidenced by various case laws. The analysis draws primarily from the provided reference materials to elucidate the scope and significance of this provision in the legal landscape of Delhi.

Legislative Framework: Section 93 and Related Provisions

Understanding Section 93 necessitates an examination of its text and its relationship with other relevant sections of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, particularly those concerning prohibited behaviours and penalties.

Text and Interpretation of Section 93

Section 93 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, lays down specific prohibitions against disruptive conduct in public places. As articulated in judicial pronouncements, the section reads:

"No person shall use in any street or public place any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned."2

The essential components of an offence under Section 93 are:

  • Conduct: The use of words or behaviour.
  • Nature of Conduct: Such words or behaviour must be threatening, abusive, or insulting.
  • Location: The conduct must occur in a "street or public place."
  • Consequence/Intent: The conduct must be either (a) with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or (b) such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned by it.

The disjunctive "or" between the intent to provoke and the likelihood of occasioning a breach of peace is significant, implying that either condition can satisfy this element of the offence. This widens the sweep of the section, as an actual intent to cause a breach of peace need not always be proven if the behaviour itself is likely to lead to such a breach.2

Section 97: Penalty for Contravention

Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, prescribes the penalties for violations of several provisions, including Section 93. While the specifics of the penalty are not detailed in all provided references, it is established that Section 97 lays down the punitive measures for such offences.2 Cases under Section 93 are often coupled with Section 97 for the purpose of imposing penalties.3, 4, 5

Interplay with Section 91: Prohibition of Indecent and Disorderly Conduct

Section 93 is frequently invoked alongside Section 91 of the Act. Section 91 addresses a broader range of disorderly conduct, stating:

"No person shall wilfully and indecently expose his person in any street or public resort or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen from, any street or public place or place of public resort, whether from within any house or building or not, or use indecent language or behave indecently or riotously or in a disorderly manner in a street or public place or place of public resort or in any office, police station or station house."2

While Section 91 focuses on indecent exposure, indecent language, and riotous or disorderly behaviour in specified locations (including police stations), Section 93 specifically targets threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour linked to a breach of peace. The combined application of these sections, as seen in cases like State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh2 and the Kalandra mentioned in MAHIPAL SINGH v. M/O HOME AFFAIRS,4 indicates that an act can constitute offences under both provisions depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 93

The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the elements of Section 93 and defining its boundaries through various pronouncements.

Defining "Street or Public Place"

A critical element for the applicability of Section 93 is that the prohibited conduct must occur in a "street or public place." The interpretation of this phrase is vital. The case of Gurdeep Singh v. State and others, as cited in Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director Petitioner v. Ramesh Kumar Ohri And Another S, held that an altercation taking place *inside a house* does not constitute an offence under Section 93, as the section requires the accused to have used a street or public place for the offending behaviour.6

Conversely, incidents occurring in areas accessible to the public, or designated as public, fall within its ambit. For instance, in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh, the misbehaviour occurred in front of a house, on a public thoroughfare.2 Similarly, in MAHIPAL SINGH v. M/O HOME AFFAIRS and Acp Mahipal Singh v. Union Of India, a Kalandra under Section 91/93/97 was registered for unruly and uncontrollable behaviour within a police station,4, 7 which Section 91 explicitly includes as a prohibited location for disorderly conduct, and which can be considered a "public place" for the purposes of Section 93 in certain contexts.

Mens Rea: Intent to Provoke or Likelihood of Breach of Peace

The Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh emphasized the scope of Section 93, noting that "it is wider in sweep in as much as even if there is no intention to provoke a breach of peace but the behaviour is such that it is likely to provoke a breach of peace the offence will be deemed to have been committed."2 This interpretation underscores that the prosecution is not always burdened with proving a specific intent; demonstrating that the natural consequence of the behaviour could be a breach of peace is sufficient.

Nature of Words or Behaviour

The Act specifies "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour." Judicial records provide examples of conduct deemed to fall under this description. In State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh, the accused, a police constable, was found "abusing and creating nuisance" and "indulging in a disorderly behaviour" while under the influence of liquor.2 In Chaman Lal v. The State And Others, a vendor was accused of eliciting custom by "shouting loudly which caused an obstruction to the passers-by and members of the public," and in some instances, "quarrelling with another vendor... exchanging filthy abuses."3 These instances illustrate the types of conduct that can attract liability under Section 93.

Procedural Aspects: Kalandras and Prosecution

Prosecutions under Section 93 (often along with Sections 91 and 97) are typically initiated by the police through the filing of a "Kalandra" (a form of complaint or report) in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate.3, 4 The case of Chaman Lal details the S.H.O. filing five separate Kalandras against the petitioner for repeated offences.3

Analysis of Key Judicial Pronouncements

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh (1984)

This case provides a significant elucidation of Sections 91, 93, and 97 of the Act.2 A police constable was prosecuted for being under the influence of liquor, misbehaving, abusing, and creating a nuisance in a public place. The High Court, overturning an acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, emphasized that Section 93's scope covers behaviour likely to provoke a breach of peace, even without explicit intent. The Court found the testimony of police officers credible, particularly when testifying against a colleague, and also considered the testimony of an aggrieved civilian. The judgment highlighted that indecent and riotous behaviour having a tendency to provoke others is an offence, irrespective of whether the person is drunk.2

Chaman Lal v. The State And Others (1982)

In this matter, the petitioner, a vendor, faced multiple prosecutions under Sections 83, 93, and 97 of the Act for setting up a stall on a thoroughfare and shouting loudly, causing obstruction and nuisance.3 The allegations also included quarrelling and using abusive language. While the judgment primarily focused on the plea to quash proceedings due to changed circumstances (the petitioner having been allotted a permanent site), it illustrates the application of Section 93 to acts of public nuisance by vendors that are perceived as abusive or likely to cause a breach of peace. The Court, exercising its inherent powers, quashed the "trivial" offences, considering the hardship undergone by the petitioner and the unlikelihood of future breaches.8

MAHIPAL SINGH v. M/O HOME AFFAIRS (2019) & Acp Mahipal Singh v. Union Of India (2015)

These cases, originating from the Central Administrative Tribunal, concern disciplinary proceedings against a police officer (ACP Mahipal Singh) related to an incident where a Kalandra under Sections 91/93/97 of the Delhi Police Act was registered against a civilian, Mr. Vikas Bakshi.4, 7 Mr. Bakshi was alleged to have "behaved in an unruly and uncontrollable manner in the Police Station itself, and was found to be in intoxicated condition" (though the MLC reportedly did not find signs of liquor influence).4 He was also alleged to have become aggressive and used abusive language upon discovery of a video recorder in his possession.7 These cases demonstrate the invocation of Section 93 for conduct occurring within a police station, perceived as threatening or abusive and potentially leading to a breach of peace.

Gurdeep Singh v. State (as cited in Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2009)

The reference to Gurdeep Singh v. State in Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director Petitioner v. Ramesh Kumar Ohri And Another S is crucial for its clarification regarding the "public place" requirement.6 The digest states: "Altercation took place inside the house - No offence under Section 93 made out-Offence under Section 93 is made out if accused used any street or public place for threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intend to provoke breach of peace." This reinforces that the spatial element is a strict requirement for an offence under Section 93.

Broader Context and Implications

Section 93 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, operates within the broader objective of maintaining public order and decency. While essential for preventing public disturbances, its application requires a careful balance to ensure that it does not unduly impinge upon individual liberties.

Balancing Public Order and Individual Freedoms

Provisions like Section 93 are designed to empower law enforcement to address conduct that genuinely threatens public peace and safety. The terms "threatening, abusive or insulting" are subject to interpretation, and their application must be reasonable and context-specific to avoid penalizing mere expressions of frustration or dissent that do not rise to the level of causing or intending to cause a breach of peace.

Historical Context and Legislative Intent

The Delhi Police Act, 1978, replaced earlier frameworks, including certain provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, that were extended to Delhi.9, 10 The Act aimed to create a comprehensive code for policing in Delhi. Provisions like Section 93 reflect the legislative intent to equip the police with tools to manage public spaces effectively and prevent minor disturbances from escalating.

The constitutional validity of similar provisions in the Bombay Police Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court, as noted in Chameli v. Commissioner Of Police And Others, which referenced Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, The State of Maharashtra (1973-1 SCC 372) in the context of externment provisions.11 This lends support to the general legislative competence in enacting such public order measures, provided they are applied fairly and within constitutional bounds.

Conclusion

Section 93 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, serves as a specific instrument for addressing conduct in public places that is threatening, abusive, or insulting and is linked to a potential or intended breach of the peace. Judicial interpretations have clarified its scope, particularly regarding the nature of the conduct, the definition of "public place," and the disjunctive requirement of intent or likelihood of causing a breach of peace. As seen in the cases discussed, its application ranges from addressing disorderly behaviour by individuals, including public servants, to managing nuisances caused by vendors. While crucial for maintaining public order, the enforcement of Section 93 must be judicious to ensure it aligns with principles of fairness and protects fundamental freedoms. The provision remains a significant, albeit minor, component of the legal framework governing public conduct in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

References

  1. Prof. Sumer Chand v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1993). ↩
  2. State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh (1984 SCC ONLINE DEL 99, Delhi High Court, 1984). ↩
  3. Chaman Lal v. The State And Others (1982 SCC ONLINE DEL 174, Delhi High Court, 1982). ↩
  4. MAHIPAL SINGH v. M/O HOME AFFAIRS (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2019). ↩
  5. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director Petitioner v. Ramesh Kumar Ohri And Another S (2009 SCC ONLINE P&H 7062, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2009) (citing Gurdeep Singh v. State and others, 1990(3) 289). ↩
  6. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director Petitioner v. Ramesh Kumar Ohri And Another S (2009 SCC ONLINE P&H 7062, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2009). ↩
  7. Acp Mahipal Singh v. Union Of India (2015 SCC ONLINE CAT 266, Central Administrative Tribunal, 2015). ↩
  8. Chaman Lal v. The State And Others (Delhi High Court, 1982) (referring to the same 1982 SCC ONLINE DEL 174 case, specifically the reasoning for quashing). ↩
  9. Hari Ram v. Commissioner Of Police Delhi And Others (Delhi High Court, 1979). ↩
  10. Raj Pal Petitioner v. Union Of India & Others S (Delhi High Court, 1969). ↩
  11. Chameli v. Commissioner Of Police And Others (Delhi High Court, 1988). ↩