IPC 20 vs BNS 20
● Modified in BNSDefinition of “Court of Justice” (Extended)
Section 20 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, expands on the earlier provisions by clarifying the meaning of a “Court of Justice.” It states that a person who is legally empowered to act as a judge, or a body of judges empowered by law to act judicially, constitutes a Court of Justice.
This section makes it clear that judicial authority is not limited to one individual. Even when multiple judges or magistrates act collectively, their authority together forms a Court of Justice. For instance, benches of the High Courts or Supreme Court are prime examples of such collective judicial authority.
The provision is significant in offences such as perjury, contempt, or obstruction of justice, which specifically refer to acts committed before a “Court of Justice.” Without this definition, it would be unclear whether judicial bodies acting collectively were covered.
By including both individual and collective judicial authorities, Section 20 strengthens the protection and respect accorded to the judicial system. It ensures that the integrity of legal proceedings is upheld, whether the case is decided by a single judge or by a panel. Thus, IPC 20 safeguards the administration of justice comprehensively.
Definition of “Court of Justice” under BNS
Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, carries forward the meaning of “Court of Justice” from IPC 20, with slightly modernized language. It explains that a Court of Justice means any person empowered by law to act as a judge, or any body of persons empowered to act judicially.
This ensures that both individual judges and collective judicial bodies fall within the scope of judicial authority. For example, a magistrate deciding a criminal case, a district court judge, or a division bench of the High Court or Supreme Court all qualify as a “Court of Justice.”
The section is particularly relevant in cases involving false evidence, obstruction of proceedings, or contempt, where the identity of the judicial authority must be clear. By retaining this broad interpretation, BNS 20 continues to safeguard the functioning of the judiciary against interference or dishonesty.
The wording in BNS 20 avoids outdated terminology and reflects a cleaner drafting style, but the substantive meaning is the same as IPC 20. This continuity shows that the definition remains central to criminal law, ensuring full protection of judicial authority across all courts in India.
What changed?
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita re-words or substantively revises this provision. Compare the two columns above to see the differences.