Court holds that the educational demonstration involving sodium and water does not constitute an offence under Explosive Substances Act or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 due to absence of malicious intent.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Pratap N.M., a science educator and content creator, who conducted a chemical experiment by dropping sodium into water in an artificial pond on a private farm. The FIR, registered by Medigeshi Police Station, alleged offences under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The petitioner had uploaded a video of the controlled experiment on her YouTube channel for the educational benefit of 10th standard students studying NCERT syllabus. The reaction demonstrated was the well-known chemical interaction of sodium with water, producing sodium hydroxide, hydrogen gas, and heat energy, which can cause a small explosion.
The prosecution contended that the explosion posed a risk to life and property under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that sodium itself is not an explosive substance as defined under the Act, and the experiment was conducted with all necessary precautions on a private farm away from public areas, solely for educational purposes without any malicious or unlawful intention.
The Court examined the definitions under the Explosive Substances Act, particularly Sections 2(a) and 2(b), which define explosive substances and special category explosive substances (such as RDX, TNT, PETN). The Court held that sodium does not fall within these definitions and therefore cannot be treated as an explosive substance under Section 3 of the Act.
Further, the Court emphasized that Section 3 requires the explosion to be caused unlawfully and maliciously. Here, the petitioner conducted the experiment openly, with full transparency by uploading the video, and there was no evidence of malicious intent or recklessness that endangered lives or property. The Court noted that while it did not endorse the manner of the experiment, the act was educative and not criminal.
Consequently, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR, relieving the petitioner from the ignominy of criminal investigation and trial. The Court cautioned that future similar actions by the petitioner would be viewed strictly. The petitioner was also permitted to apply for the return of any seized material before the competent Magistrate.
This ruling sets a precedent that controlled scientific demonstrations conducted responsibly for educational purposes do not necessarily attract criminal liability under the Explosive Substances Act or the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provisions, provided there is no maliciousness or unlawful intent.
Bottom Line:
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 3 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner, a science educator, conducted controlled experiment by dropping sodium into water at a private farm for educational demonstration of textbook reaction - Sodium by itself not an explosive substance - Complaint and FIR did not disclose malicious or unlawful intention as required under Section 3 - Mere educational experiment, though not endorsed by Court, would not attract offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act or Section 288 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - FIR quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 2(a), Section 2(b), Section 3; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 288
Pratap N.M. v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000492
