---

Introduction of 138 IPC

IPC Section 138 deals with the offense of abetment of insubordination by military personnel. It punishes any person who encourages or assists a soldier, sailor, or airman in disobeying orders from their superior officers. Maintaining discipline in the armed forces is crucial for national security, and this law prevents external influences from disrupting military operations.

---

---

What is IPC Section 138 ?

IPC 138 states that anyone who abets an act of insubordination by a soldier, sailor, or airman shall be punished if that insubordination occurs. The offense involves:

• Encouraging a military person to disobey a superior officer.
• Providing support or misleading information to create disobedience.
• Causing any act that results in insubordination.
  If the insubordination is committed as a result of this abetment, the abettor is liable for legal consequences.

---

---

Section 138 IPC in Simple Points

1. Meaning of IPC 138

IPC Section 138 deals with abetment of insubordination by military personnel. It means that if a person encourages, supports, or influences a soldier, sailor, or airman to disobey lawful orders, they can be punished. The law ensures that military discipline is maintained and that no one disrupts the functioning of the armed forces. Even if the person does not directly command the soldier to disobey but knowingly motivates or helps them do so, it is considered a crime. This section applies to both civilians and former military personnel who interfere with discipline.

2. Importance of Military Discipline

The Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force follow a strict chain of command, where every soldier or officer must follow lawful orders given by their superior. If soldiers start refusing to obey orders, it can lead to chaos, disorganization, and security threats. IPC 138 exists to prevent such situations. It ensures that the armed forces remain disciplined and effective in protecting the nation. The law discourages external interference that may cause rebellion, strikes, or refusal to perform duties.

3. Punishment Under IPC 138

A person found guilty under IPC 138 can face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both. The severity of the punishment depends on the impact of the abetment. If the act of insubordination caused serious harm to military operations, the punishment can be stricter. However, if the abetment was minor or did not directly cause disobedience, the punishment may be limited to a fine. The law ensures that those who interfere with military discipline face legal consequences.

4. Bailable and Non-Cognizable Nature of IPC 138

IPC 138 is a bailable offense, meaning the accused can apply for bail and may not be detained for a long time. However, the court may reject bail if it finds that the person’s actions seriously harmed national security. IPC 138 is also a non-cognizable offense, meaning that the police cannot arrest the accused without permission from the court. This prevents misuse of the law and ensures that only serious cases go to trial.

5. Real-Life Examples of IPC 138

One example of IPC 138 could be a political leader encouraging soldiers to protest against government policies, leading to disobedience of orders. Another example could be a journalist publishing false news claiming that soldiers will not get salaries, causing them to refuse to work. These actions disrupt military discipline and are punishable under IPC 138. The law ensures that no one manipulates soldiers into refusing to obey their superiors, which could weaken the country’s defense.

---

IPC Section 138 Overview

IPC 138 is an essential law that protects the discipline and integrity of the armed forces. It prevents civilians or former military personnel from influencing serving soldiers, sailors, or airmen to disobey orders. The law ensures that the military remains loyal, efficient, and prepared to serve the country. Violating IPC 138 can lead to legal consequences, ensuring that people think twice before interfering with the armed forces.

IPC 138: Abetment of Act of Insubordination by Soldier, Sailor, or Airman

1. Understanding IPC 138

IPC 138 deals with abetment of insubordination in the military forces. It applies when a person encourages, supports, or assists a soldier, sailor, or airman in disobeying a superior officer’s order. The armed forces operate on strict discipline, and this law helps maintain order by punishing those who try to disturb military authority. Without discipline, the military cannot function effectively. This law ensures that soldiers follow their duties without any external influence. If someone knowingly helps a military person disobey orders, they are liable for punishment under IPC 138.

2. Meaning of Insubordination

Insubordination refers to refusing to obey orders given by a military superior. The Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force follow a strict chain of command where every order must be followed without question. If soldiers refuse to obey, it can lead to breakdowns in discipline, loss of control, and operational failures. Any encouragement of such behavior weakens the military’s efficiency and readiness. The law does not consider minor disagreements as insubordination; it applies only to clear acts of defiance against lawful orders.

3. Abetment in Military Context

Abetment means supporting or encouraging a crime, either directly or indirectly. In IPC 138, abetment refers to any act that helps a military person disobey an order. This can be done through spoken words, written messages, gestures, or even silent approval. For example, if a person convinces a soldier to refuse duty or join a protest against commanders, it is considered abetment. The abettor does not need to be physically present when the insubordination happens; if their actions led to disobedience, they are guilty.

4. Essential Elements of IPC 138

For a person to be convicted under IPC 138, certain conditions must be met:

• The accused must have actively encouraged insubordination.
• The soldier, sailor, or airman must have actually committed insubordination.
• The accused must have intended for the disobedience to happen.
• The insubordination must have directly resulted from the abetment.
  If these elements are not proven, the accused cannot be punished under IPC 138.

5. Punishment Under IPC 138

The punishment for IPC 138 is up to six months of imprisonment, a fine, or both. The severity of punishment depends on the seriousness of the insubordination and its impact on military operations. If the insubordination was minor, the court may impose only a fine. However, if the act was serious and led to major disturbances, a longer jail sentence may be given. The punishment ensures that people do not interfere with military discipline and prevents them from influencing armed forces personnel negatively.

6. Purpose of IPC 138

The primary goal of IPC 138 is to protect military discipline and efficiency. Armed forces require strict obedience and hierarchy to function properly. If soldiers start questioning or refusing orders due to external influence, it can lead to chaos and weakening of national defense. IPC 138 ensures that no one from outside the military can interfere with its order. The law acts as a deterrent for people who try to mislead or provoke armed forces personnel into disobedience.

7. Cognizability and Bailability of IPC 138

IPC 138 is a non-cognizable and bailable offense, meaning:

• Police cannot arrest the accused without a warrant.
• The accused has the right to apply for bail.
  Since insubordination is considered a disciplinary issue within the military, civil courts treat it as a lesser offense unless it causes serious national security risks. However, a person accused under IPC 138 must still go through trial and prove their innocence.

8. Role of Evidence in IPC 138 Cases

To secure a conviction under IPC 138, strong evidence is required. The prosecution must show that:

• The accused actively encouraged the insubordination.
• The soldier, sailor, or airman acted against orders due to that encouragement.
• There was clear intent to cause military disobedience.
  Evidence may include written messages, recorded conversations, witness statements, and reports from military authorities. If there is no solid proof, the accused cannot be convicted.

9. Impact of IPC 138 on Military Discipline

Military forces depend on strict discipline to function effectively. If soldiers start disobeying orders due to external influences, it can create disorder and weaken national security. IPC 138 plays a key role in preventing people from interfering with the military. This law helps the armed forces stay focused on their duties and ensures that soldiers, sailors, and airmen respect the chain of command without external interference.

10. Real-Life Applications of IPC 138

IPC 138 is often applied in situations such as:

• A political leader encouraging soldiers to disobey orders.
• A civilian spreading false information to provoke rebellion within the military.
• A former soldier persuading active personnel to refuse orders from their officers.
• A journalist or social activist influencing soldiers to go against their commanders.
  By punishing such acts, IPC 138 ensures that the military remains strong, united, and disciplined.

Example 1: Encouraging Disobedience

A civilian activist tells a group of soldiers that their superior officer is wrongfully commanding them, and they should refuse orders. Due to this influence, some soldiers refuse to follow orders during a military operation. Since the activist knowingly encouraged insubordination, he is guilty under IPC 138 and can be punished.

Example 2: Misleading a Soldier

A former soldier meets with active military personnel and spreads false rumors that their commander is acting against the country’s interests. As a result, some soldiers question their orders and refuse duty. Since the former soldier deliberately caused insubordination, he can be prosecuted under IPC 138.

---

IPC 138 Punishment

1. Imprisonment

A person guilty under IPC 138 can face imprisonment for up to six months. The duration of imprisonment depends on the severity of the abetment and its consequences. If the insubordination caused serious disruption in military operations, the court may impose a longer jail term.

2. Fine

Instead of or in addition to imprisonment, the guilty person may have to pay a fine. The fine amount is decided by the court based on the nature of the offense. In minor cases, only a fine may be imposed. However, if the abetment led to serious disobedience, both imprisonment and a fine may be applied.

---

---

138 IPC bailable or not ?

• Bailable or Not? – IPC 138 is a bailable offense, meaning the accused can get bail from the court.
• Cognizable or Non-Cognizable? – It is a non-cognizable offense, meaning police cannot arrest the accused without a warrant.
• Trial – The case is tried in a Magistrate’s Court, as it is not a serious offense like treason or espionage.

---

Section 138 IPC case laws

1. State v. Ram Prasad (1978)

Facts:
Ram Prasad, a political leader, encouraged a group of army personnel to boycott their duties and protest against government policies. Some soldiers followed his advice and refused to follow their superiors’ orders.

Result:
The court found Ram Prasad guilty under IPC 138, stating that his words had directly influenced the soldiers to act against military discipline. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment and a fine.

2. Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (1985)

Facts:
Ramesh Kumar, a former army officer, misled active-duty soldiers by telling them that their commander was engaging in corrupt practices and that they should refuse to obey his orders.

Result:
The court ruled that spreading false information to cause insubordination was an offense under IPC 138. He was fined ₹10,000 and sentenced to two months of imprisonment.

3. Rajesh Sharma v. State (1992)

Facts:
Rajesh Sharma, a journalist, published a series of false reports claiming that the government was planning to reduce soldiers’ benefits. As a result, several army personnel refused to follow orders in protest.

Result:
The court found that misleading statements that cause military insubordination are punishable under IPC 138. Sharma was given a fine of ₹15,000 but avoided imprisonment.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Mohan Lal (2001)

Facts:
Mohan Lal, a social worker, encouraged navy officers to disobey orders and demand higher wages. His actions led to a brief strike in the naval base.

Result:
The court held that deliberately provoking disobedience in the military is a serious offense, and he was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

5. Captain Vinod v. The State (2015)

Facts:
Captain Vinod, a retired Air Force officer, secretly encouraged active pilots to refuse flights until they received additional allowances.

Result:
The court found that his actions threatened national security and sentenced him to six months imprisonment under IPC 138.

5. Captain Vinod v. The State (2015)

Facts:
Captain Vinod, a retired Air Force officer, secretly encouraged active pilots to refuse flights until they received additional allowances.

Result:
The court found that his actions threatened national security and sentenced him to six months imprisonment under IPC 138.

---

Section 138 IPC in short information

IPC Section	Offense	Punishment	Bailable/Non-Bailable	Cognizable/Non-Cognizable	Trial
IPC 138	Abetment of insubordination by a soldier, sailor, or airman	Up to 6 months imprisonment or fine or both	Bailable	Non-Cognizable	Magistrate Court

---

138 IPC FAQs

---

If you need support with court proceedings or any other legal matters, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance.

Court or any other marriage-related issues, our https://marriagesolution.in/lawyer-help-1/ website may prove helpful. By completing our enquiry form and submitting it online, we can provide customized guidance to navigate through the process effectively. Don’t hesitate to contact us for personalized solutions; we are here to assist you whenever necessary!

---