Section 178 IPC: Refusing Oath or Affirmation When Duly Required by Public Servant
Section 178 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished refusal to bind oneself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth when a public servant legally competent to require that oath or affirmation duly required it.
Meaning of Section 178 IPC
The provision applied when a person was required to bind himself or herself to state the truth by oath or affirmation and deliberately refused to do so. An essential condition was that the requirement had to come from a public servant who was legally competent to require the oath or affirmation. A demand made by a person lacking such legal authority would not by itself satisfy this section.
An oath is a formal undertaking to state the truth. An affirmation serves the corresponding legal function without requiring an oath. The words "or affirmation" were inserted into Section 178 by Act 10 of 1873, section 15.
Section 178 IPC - statutory provision
Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it.
Whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth, when required so to bind himself by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall so bind himself, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Essential ingredients
- There must be a requirement to bind oneself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth.
- The requirement must be made by a public servant.
- That public servant must be legally competent to require the oath or affirmation.
- The person concerned must refuse to bind himself or herself by the required oath or affirmation.
Punishment under Section 178 IPC
| Offence | Maximum imprisonment | Maximum fine |
|---|---|---|
| Refusing an oath or affirmation when duly required by a legally competent public servant | Simple imprisonment up to 6 months | Rs. 1,000, or both imprisonment and fine |
Nature and procedure under pre-BNS law
Under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence under Section 178 IPC was non-cognizable and bailable. If committed in a Court, it was triable by that Court subject to the special procedural provisions applicable to offences affecting the administration of justice; if not committed in a Court, it was triable by any Magistrate.
Section 195(1)(a) CrPC also restricted cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. A Court could take cognizance only on a written complaint of the public servant concerned or of another public servant to whom that public servant was administratively subordinate.
Difference from Sections 179 and 181 IPC
Section 178 IPC concerned refusal to take an oath or affirmation when lawfully required. Section 179 IPC dealt with refusal to answer a question on a subject on which a person was legally bound to state the truth to an authorised public servant. Section 181 IPC dealt with making a false statement on oath or affirmation to a public servant or other person authorised to administer it. These provisions therefore addressed different forms of non-compliance or falsehood.
Present legal position after 1 July 2024
The corresponding provision is Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The substantive wording is substantially retained. The maximum term remains simple imprisonment for six months, while the maximum fine has increased from Rs. 1,000 under Section 178 IPC to Rs. 5,000 under Section 213 BNS.
This page primarily explains the IPC provision applicable before commencement of the BNS. The applicable law in a particular matter depends on the date of the alleged conduct and the relevant saving and transition provisions.
This article provides general legal information and is not a substitute for advice on the facts and procedural record of a particular case.