Section 37 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Acts against which there is no right of private defence

BNS 37 is one of the laws that governs fair practice of private defence, its goal is not to abuse the self-defence right and that is more along the lines of protecting citizens from the misuse of power against of public officer if public officers act in good faith and in honest exercise of their functions. This means that person cannot take unfair advantage of others who are just doing their job. 

The rule further adds that whenever legal assistance appears, the individuals ought to receive the help rather than resorting to self-defence, it also indicates that if legal help is available then one should use that help rather than resorting to self-defence and if a person is in danger then he or she should only use just as much force as is required in the protection of themself and not go about inflicting damage on other people unnecessarily. In general, the law promotes a balanced and responsible approach toward self-defence.

About Section 37 of BNS

Section 37 of BNS totally prohibits private defence used against public officials acting in good faith or when legal assistance is readily available. In addition, BNS-37 limits the measure of damage inflicted in the act of defence, wherein the action must be proportionate to the danger committed.

Section 37 is mentioned in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Act’s CHAPTER III GENERAL EXCEPTIONS which states:

• Statement: 

1.  There is no right of private defence, when

(a). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law; 

(b). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law; 

(c). in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

2. The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

• Explanation: 

1. A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

2. A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction or unless such person states the authority under which he acts or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

• Example:

1. A public servant is doing something which causes no death or grievous hurt and if a person applies force to this act, the application of force would not be justified under the right of private defence.

2. If a person is assaulted by someone later disclosed to be acting under the direction of a public servant and a person has no possible means of knowing this then there is no meaning of private defence as it was necessary.

What are General Exceptions?

General exceptions are provisions of law that create defence against criminal liability. This accepts the fact that not all Person who are breaking the law are criminal but these exceptions need to be provided for circumstances in which the actions of the person may actually be unlawful but isn’t punished with criminal penalties due to specific justifications.

People Also Read: What is the Punishment for repeat offenders Under Section 71

Difference between IPC and BNS regarding Acts against which there is no right of private defence

Indian Penal Code (IPC)	Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
In IPC Section 99 deals with Acts against which there is no right of private defence	In BNS Section 37 deals with Acts against which there is no right of private defence
It was assented on 6th October, 1860.	It received the assent of the President on the 25th December, 2023.
It came into effect on January 1, 1862.	It came into effect on July 1, 2024.
Statement: There is no right of private defence, when (a). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law;  (b). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law;  (c).  in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.	Statement: There is no right of private defence, when (a). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law;  (b). against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law;  (c). in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.  The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Important Points in Section 37 of BNS

According to section 37 of BNS, it describes a specific restriction that has been imposed on the right to private defence and the circumstance in which it cannot be used. It assures that self-defence can be used lawfully so it cannot be misused.

1. No Right of Private Defence Against Public Servants:

There is no right of private defence against acts committed by public servants acting in good faith under the authority of their office, though their act may not be strictly legal. But this again only extends to the case where their acts do not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

2. No Right of Private Defence Against the Person Directed by public servant: 

Right of private defence can’t happen when a public servant directs some other to commit such act. Private defence is not admissible, if a public servant acting himself in good faith his direction do not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

3. No Private Defence Needed When Public Authorities Can Be Reached:

If it is possible to reach to the public authorities in time then the right of private defence should not be used. This serves to prevent revolts and from taking the law into their own hands when proper legal action taking is available.

4. Unnecessary Extra Harm Not Permitted:

Even when the right of private defence exists, a person is not permitted to cause greater harm than necessary. 

Example for Section 37 of BNS

1. Example of a Public Servant Acting in Good Faith: 

A police officer is trying to control a crowd during a public event and if a Person feels that the officer is being too forceful but the officer is acting within their duty to maintain order then the person cannot claim self-defence against the officer. Since the officer is acting in good faith and their actions do not cause fear of death or serious injury any force used against the officer would not be justified.

2. Example of an Act Done Under Direction of a Public Servant: 

If a public servant issues an order for a construction project that disrupts a local community but does not cause serious harm. If a resident attempts to physically stop a worker from carrying out this order, the resident cannot claim self-defense. The worker is simply following the public servant’s lawful direction and the resident’s response is not justified under the right to private defense.

3. Example of Seeking Legal Help: 

Consider a situation where a person feels threatened by a neighbour who is making loud and aggressive comments. If the person has time to call the police or seek help from local authorities, they should do so instead of confronting the neighbour. According to Section 37, resorting to self-defense is not appropriate when legal assistance is available.

4. Example of Verbal Threat: 

If someone is being verbally threatened but not physically attacked, responding with physical force would exceed the necessary level of defense. For instance, if a person feels threatened during an argument and pushes the other person away, that may be justified. However, if they retaliate by causing serious injury, this would not be allowed under the law, as the response must be proportional to the threat faced.

5. Example of Misunderstanding: 

Imagine a scenario where a person is assaulted by someone who is later revealed to be acting under the direction of a public servant. If the assaulted individual had no way of knowing that the assailant was acting on orders, their right to private defense could still be in question. This highlights the importance of awareness and understanding in invoking the right to self-defense.

Conclusion

Under Section 37 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, there is also the principle of reasonable and proportionate use of private defence in relation to persons acting as public servants in good faith. It aids in defining clear boundaries about when such right of self-defence can be used.

This law makes provisions against the misuse of this relevant right, while encouraging people to seek legal assistance as needed. This only yields way for dignity to the public officials but helps cultivate an environment of respect and adherence to lawful proceedings. In the long run, knowledge in these matters can allow people more wisely approach conflict circumstances so not to exceed and go beyond the borders of legality into their response.

Frequently Asked Questions on Section 37 of BNS

Q1. What is Section 37 of BNS?

Ans.1. Section 37 of BNS states that there is no Right of Private Defence in front of public official or person who is in direction of a public servant who is acting in good faith for people or under his job in which no danger of Death or serious Hurt is there. Therefore a person should avoid using Right to Private Defence if there is time to get help from public legal authority and if defence is used it shouldn’t be harmful or excessive.

Q2. When Right to Personal defence is not allowed?

Ans.2. Right to Personal Defence id not allowed when:

•  No Right of Private Defence Against Public Servants
• No Right of Private Defence Against the Person Directed by public servant 
• No Private Defence Needed When Public Authorities Can Be Reached
• Unnecessary Extra Harm Not Permitted

Q3. Is section 37 of BNS bailable?

Ans.3. Section 37 of BNS does not define an offence but rather relates the limitations of the right of private defence. Thus, it has no bailability status because it is not corresponding to any type of offence or charge.

Q4. What is the Punishment for Section 37 of BNS?

Ans.4. Since section 37 of BNS does not define an offense but describes the limits within which the right to private defense cannot be exercised, it does not provide any punishment. This section explains more about when the right of private defense will not apply.

Q5. Which Section of IPC is similar to Section 37 of BNS?

Ans.5. IPC Section 99 deals with Act against which there is no right of private defence.