Section 182 of BNSS, 2023 — No Inducement to Be Offered

Introduction

Section 182 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 protects persons being examined during a police investigation from being influenced through inducement, threat or promise.

The provision is based on a simple principle: a statement given to the police during investigation should be the result of the person’s free will, and not the result of pressure or an assurance of some benefit.

Section 182 is therefore an important safeguard against improper methods of police investigation. It should be read together with Sections 180 and 181, which deal respectively with examination of persons by police and the use of statements made to police.

Meaning of Section 182

Section 182 provides that no police officer or other person in a position of authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made, any inducement, threat or promise of the kind referred to in Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to a person who is being examined during an investigation.

The purpose is to ensure that the person’s statement is not obtained through improper influence.

In simple terms:

The police may question a person, but cannot obtain the person’s statement by offering a benefit, making a threat, or giving a promise intended to influence the person’s conduct.

Statutory Basis

Section 182 is closely connected with:

• Section 180 BNSS — Examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 181 BNSS — Statements to police and use thereof.
• Section 182 BNSS — No inducement to be offered.
• Section 22 BSA — Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
• Section 183 BNSS — Recording of confessions and statements by Magistrate.

The reference to Section 22 of the BSA is important because the BNSS provision adopts the evidentiary standard concerning improper inducement, threat or promise.

Object and Purpose

The principal object of Section 182 is to preserve the voluntariness and reliability of statements obtained during investigation.

Police investigation necessarily involves questioning persons and collecting information. However, the investigative authority cannot use its position to manipulate a person into making a statement through improper pressure or promised benefits.

The provision therefore seeks to:

• prevent coercive investigative practices;
• protect persons being questioned;
• preserve the reliability of information obtained during investigation;
• prevent abuse of police authority; and
• support fairness in criminal proceedings.

What Is Prohibited?

Section 182 prohibits three forms of improper influence:

1. Inducement

An inducement is an attempt to influence a person’s conduct by offering some benefit or advantage.

For example, if an investigating officer tells a person:

“Give this particular statement and we will make sure you receive a benefit.”

such conduct may fall within the prohibition against improper inducement.

The important factor is that the offer is intended to influence the person’s statement or conduct.

2. Threat

A threat involves creating fear of an adverse consequence in order to influence the person.

For example, telling a witness:

“If you do not give the statement we want, you will face serious consequences.”

would raise the concern addressed by Section 182.

A threat is particularly problematic because it undermines the person’s free choice.

3. Promise

A promise may involve an assurance of some advantage or favourable treatment designed to influence the person’s statement.

For example, promising favourable treatment in exchange for a particular version of events may amount to improper influence.

The relevant question is whether the promise is capable of operating upon the person’s mind and affecting the person’s decision to make a particular statement.

Who Is Prohibited From Offering Inducement?

The provision is wider than merely prohibiting the investigating police officer.

It applies to:

• a police officer; or
• any other person in authority.

The prohibition also extends to a person causing such inducement, threat or promise to be offered or made.

Therefore, the provision is designed to prevent authorities from avoiding the restriction by using another person as an intermediary.

Person in Authority

The expression “person in authority” is significant.

A person does not necessarily have to be the investigating officer personally to fall within the provision.

The purpose is to prevent anyone exercising relevant authority in the investigation from improperly influencing the person being examined.

The focus is therefore on the person’s position of authority and the nature of the influence being exercised.

Connection with Section 22 of the BSA

Section 182 BNSS expressly refers to Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 22 concerns confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise.

The underlying principle is that a confession obtained because of improper influence should not be treated as reliable voluntary evidence.

The BNSS therefore links the conduct of police investigation with the evidentiary principles governing confessions.

Important Qualification

Not every statement made after a conversation with a police officer is automatically invalid merely because some discussion took place.

The statutory concern is with an inducement, threat or promise of the relevant kind that is capable of influencing the person in the manner contemplated by the evidence law.

Therefore, the existence, nature and effect of the alleged inducement, threat or promise must be examined in the circumstances of each case.

Section 182 and Voluntary Statements

The central idea behind Section 182 is voluntariness.

A person may voluntarily provide information to the police.

The problem arises when the statement is obtained through improper influence.

For example:

Voluntary statement:
A witness willingly tells the investigating officer what the witness saw.

Improper inducement:
The officer offers the witness a benefit in exchange for giving a particular version.

Threat:
The officer threatens the witness with adverse consequences unless the witness gives the desired version.

The first situation is part of ordinary investigation. The latter situations raise the concern addressed by Section 182.

Section 182 and Section 180

The two provisions deal with different aspects of police questioning.

Section 180

Section 180 gives the police the power to examine persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 182

Section 182 places a restriction on how that examination may be conducted.

Thus, the police have the power to ask questions, but they cannot obtain answers through prohibited inducement, threat or promise.

Section 182 and Section 181

Section 181 deals with the use of statements made to police.

Section 182 deals with improper influence during the process of obtaining statements.

Therefore:

• Section 180 concerns examination.
• Section 181 concerns the use of police statements.
• Section 182 concerns inducement, threat and promise during investigation.

These three provisions should be studied together.

Section 182 and Section 183

Section 183 deals with confessions and statements recorded by a Magistrate.

The distinction is important because a Magistrate recording a confession is subject to a separate statutory procedure designed to ensure that the confession is voluntary.

Section 182, on the other hand, addresses improper inducement, threat or promise during investigation.

The overall objective of both provisions is to protect the voluntariness and reliability of statements and confessions.

Constitutional Connection

Section 182 supports constitutional principles concerning fair investigation, personal liberty and protection against coercive methods.

It is particularly relevant to the broader protection against compelled self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

A person should not be forced into providing incriminating material through coercive investigative methods.

Article 21 is also relevant because criminal investigation must be conducted according to fair and lawful procedure.

Important Case Law

State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya

The Supreme Court examined the law relating to confessions, police investigation and the evidentiary restrictions applicable to statements made during investigation.

The case is relevant to understanding the broader principle that criminal investigation and confession-related evidence are subject to statutory safeguards.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination during police questioning.

The judgment recognised that a person’s rights do not disappear merely because the person is being questioned as part of a criminal investigation.

The case is particularly relevant when Section 182 is read with Section 180 and Article 20(3).

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of sensitivity and fairness in dealing with victims and witnesses in sexual-offence cases.

Although the case does not directly interpret Section 182 BNSS, its broader principles concerning fair treatment during criminal proceedings are relevant to the protective purpose of procedural safeguards.

Section 182 and Confession

An important examination point is that Section 182 is not itself a complete rule determining the admissibility of every confession.

It prohibits improper inducement, threat or promise during police investigation and connects that prohibition with the evidentiary rule in Section 22 BSA.

The admissibility and evidentiary value of a confession must therefore be determined by reading the relevant BNSS and BSA provisions together.

Example

Suppose a person is being questioned about a robbery.

The investigating officer asks:

“What did you see on the night of the robbery?”

The person voluntarily answers.

There is nothing inherently prohibited about this type of questioning.

Now suppose the officer says:

“If you tell us that a particular person committed the robbery, we will make sure you receive favourable treatment.”

This introduces an inducement or promise intended to influence the person’s statement.

Alternatively, if the officer says:

“If you do not give the statement we want, you will be punished.”

that may constitute a threat.

Section 182 exists to prevent such investigative methods.

Important Distinction: Questioning vs Coercion

Section 182 does not prohibit police questioning itself.

Police questioning is an essential part of investigation and is expressly authorised under Section 180.

What Section 182 prohibits is the use of specified forms of improper influence while obtaining information.

Therefore:

Questioning is permissible; coercive or improper inducement is not.

BNSS and CrPC

Section 182 BNSS substantially corresponds to Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The earlier CrPC provision also prohibited police officers and other persons in authority from offering inducement, threat or promise to persons being examined during investigation.

The BNSS retains this basic safeguard while updating the reference to the corresponding provision of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Therefore, judicial principles developed under Section 163 CrPC may remain relevant where the statutory language and context are substantially similar.

Common Confusions

Does Section 182 prohibit police from questioning witnesses?

No.

Police questioning is permitted under Section 180.

Section 182 regulates the manner in which the questioning is conducted.

Can police offer ordinary assistance to a witness?

The provision does not prohibit every form of communication or assistance.

The issue is whether there is an inducement, threat or promise of the kind contemplated by the statutory provision and intended to influence the person’s statement or conduct.

Does the provision apply only to police officers?

No.

It also covers other persons in authority and persons who cause such prohibited influence to be offered or made.

Does Section 182 apply only to accused persons?

No.

It applies to a person being examined during investigation and therefore is not limited to accused persons.

Is every promise made during investigation prohibited?

Not necessarily.

The promise must be of the relevant kind and must have the character of an improper influence contemplated by the provision and the BSA.

Is Section 182 the same as Section 182 CrPC?

No.

Section 182 BNSS corresponds substantially to Section 163 CrPC. The numbering changed under the new procedural code.

Important BNSS Provisions

• Section 179 — Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.
• Section 180 — Examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 181 — Statements to police and use thereof.
• Section 182 — No inducement to be offered.
• Section 183 — Recording of confessions and statements.

Topic at a Glance

• Section: 182 BNSS
• Subject: No inducement to be offered.
• Corresponding CrPC provision: Section 163.
• Who is protected? A person being examined during investigation.
• Who is restricted? Police officers and other persons in authority.
• Prohibited conduct: Inducement, threat or promise of the relevant kind.
• Related BSA provision: Section 22.
• Main purpose: Ensure that statements during investigation are not obtained through improper influence.
• Related BNSS provision: Section 180 deals with police examination.
• Constitutional connection: Article 20(3) and Article 21.
• Nature: Procedural safeguard against improper investigative influence.

Quick Revision

• Section 182 BNSS = No inducement to be offered.
• It substantially corresponds to Section 163 CrPC.
• Police cannot use an improper inducement, threat or promise while examining a person during investigation.
• The restriction applies to police officers and other persons in authority.
• It also prevents authorities from causing another person to offer the prohibited inducement, threat or promise.
• Section 182 is linked to Section 22 BSA.
• The provision protects the voluntariness and reliability of statements.
• It does not prohibit ordinary police questioning.
• Section 180 authorises examination; Section 182 regulates the manner in which it is conducted.
• Section 181 deals with the use of police statements.
• The provision is connected with Article 20(3) and the broader principle of fair investigation under Article 21.
• Important case: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani.
• Remember: Questioning is permitted; improper inducement, threat or promise is prohibited.

ALSO READ: Section 181 – Statements to police and use thereof

Conclusion

Section 182 of the BNSS is an important safeguard governing the conduct of police investigation. It recognises that although the police must have sufficient authority to question persons and collect information, that authority cannot be exercised through improper inducement, threats or promises.

The provision therefore strikes a balance between effective investigation and protection against coercive investigative practices. When read with Sections 180 and 181, it creates a coherent framework: the police may examine relevant persons, but statements must be obtained without prohibited influence and their subsequent use remains subject to statutory restrictions.