Criminal trespass and house-trespass under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Why in news: Protesters who climbed Jantar Mantar's locked gates on 13 October 2026, a day after its de-notification as a protest site, face house-trespass charges.
Criminal trespass under section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is entering or staying on property in another's possession to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the occupier; entry alone is a civil wrong. House-trespass charges against protesters at a de-notified Delhi protest site have brought it into the news.
Syllabus: Prelims · Current Affairs & IR; Prelims · Polity & Governance
Why this matters for UPSC
GS2 polity and criminal law: Prelims can ask what section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires, which places house-trespass covers and how fines changed from the IPC; Mains, about policing protest and public land.
In short
Criminal trespass, defined in section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, punishes entry into property in another's possession with a guilty intent; entry alone is only a civil wrong.
Section 329 protects possession, not official displeasure; its line between tort and crime holds only when police prove the intent, not mere entry.
Why it matters
A tenant, a family living on a pavement and a protester on a closed public lawn can all be accused of trespass, but the law asks what each one meant to do. If police may treat every unauthorised entry as a crime, a land quarrel or a peaceful sit-in can end in arrest and jail. If the purpose must be shown, the criminal law is kept for those who enter to threaten, insult or commit another offence, and the rest go to a civil court. The same line decides whether a landlord may walk into a let room, and whether the poor who live on public land from need are treated as criminals. It belongs to the question of how far the State may police public space.
Prelims pointers
- Section 329(2) BNS, Explanation: introducing any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering enough for house-trespass.
- Section 330 BNS has two parts: sub-section (1) on concealed entry and sub-section (2) listing six modes of entry or exit, with eight illustrations.
- Section 331 BNS: lurking house-trespass or house-breaking carries imprisonment of either description up to two years, rising to three after sunset and before sunrise.
- IPC to BNS: sections 441 and 442 IPC became section 329; sections 443 and 445 became section 330; sections 453 to 460 became section 331.
- Mathri v State of Punjab (1963): the Supreme Court held that foreseen annoyance is not proof of an intent to annoy.
- Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): known for the right to livelihood under Article 21; pavement dwellers lacked criminal-trespass intent.
- Section 332 BNS: house-trespass to commit an offence punishable with death carries life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years.
Practise a UPSC-style question
With reference to criminal trespass under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, consider the following statements:
1. Because the offence protects possession, even an owner may commit it by entering premises in another's lawful possession.
2. A person who enters property lawfully cannot commit criminal trespass by remaining there afterwards with intent to annoy.
3. Entering land in another's possession without permission is criminal trespass even when there is no intent to offend or annoy.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer
Answer: (a) 1 only
Answer: (a) 1 only. The offence guards possession and needs a guilty purpose, which may arise after a lawful entry.
Statement 1: correct. Trespass offences are against possession, not ownership; the Kerala High Court upheld a landlord's house-trespass conviction in March 2026.
Statement 2: incorrect. Section 329(1) of the BNS also covers a person who enters lawfully and then unlawfully remains with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy.
Statement 3: incorrect. Entry without permission and without that intent is civil trespass, a tort; section 329 needs intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy.
Eliminate: Statement 3 is wrong, since entry alone is only a tort. Out: (c), (d).
Eliminate: Statement 2 is wrong, since lawful entry then unlawful remaining is covered. Out: (b).
Trap: Wrong scope. Statement 3 stretches the crime to cover every unauthorised entry, which is the narrower civil wrong.
Remember: Criminal trespass = another's possession + guilty purpose, at entry or while remaining.
In the news
More Explainers
- State Legislative Councils: Articles 168-172 and the graduates' and teachers' seats Polity
- Whales and dolphins in Indian waters: legal protection, IUCN status and strandings Environment
- The Aligarh Movement, AMU and the Article 30 minority test Polity
- Environmental clearance by States: SEIAA, SEAC and the EIA Notification, 2006 Environment
- Software vulnerabilities: CVE, CVSS, coordinated disclosure and CERT-In's role Sci-Tech
- Drug trafficking law in India: NDPS Act, PIT-NDPS, NCB and NCORD National
- Choosing the UN Secretary-General: Article 97, UNSC veto and straw polls World & IR
- UN Convention against Torture, and why India has not ratified it Polity
- NavIC: why India's navigation constellation cannot give a standalone position Sci-Tech
- International Energy Agency: membership, 90-day oil stocks and India's status World & IR
- PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana and the rooftop solar subsidy Economy
- HFSS foods: FSSAI's draft limits and front-of-pack warning labels National