BNS Section 31 - Communication Made In Good Faith

BNS Section 31 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) creates an important exception to the general idea that causing harm can constitute a crime. BNS Section 31 states that a communicative act is protected if it is a good-faith communication for the benefit of the person to whom the communication is directed, even if the communication can cause harm. It recognizes that some circumstances, especially involving professional obligations, or when there are genuinely humane concerns at play, require the need to communicate honestly and openly, even if those communications can be upsetting. It would be absurd for an honest communication to be prosecutable as a crime and made punishable by law, just because the communication had a distressed outcome. BNS Section 31 is the direct equivalent and is a restatement of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 93 to signal that society continues to protect reasonable and good faith communications. For professionals such as doctors, counselors, or even just caring individuals, if they present potentially disruptive information honestly and competently, they deserve to do so free from fear of being prosecuted for what they say.

In this article, you will get to know about:

• Simplified Explanation of BNS Section 31.
• Key Details.
• Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 31.

Legal Provision

BNS Section 31- Communication Made In Good Faith

No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Illustration: A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.

Simplified Explanation

Essentially, Section 31 of the BNS states that if you pass something along to someone in good faith and because you think it is going to help them, you won't be guilty of a crime when that communication causes them some harm. The law accepts that there are circumstances where the truth has to be told even when it might be a painful thing to hear because you have a genuine concern or a professional responsibility to do so. The crux of this is that you acted in good faith and intended to help the person you made the communication to.

The key components of this Section are:

• No Communication Made in Good Faith is an Offence: This is the core principle. If your communication meets the criteria of being made in good faith, it will not be considered a crime solely because it resulted in harm.
• By Reason of Any Harm to the Person to Whom it is Made: The protection applies specifically to harm suffered by the person receiving the communication. This could be physical, mental, emotional, or any other form of detriment.
• If it is Made for the Benefit of That Person: This highlights the intention behind the communication. The primary purpose must be to help, guide, or inform the recipient in their best interest.
• Good Faith: This is a crucial element and implies honesty, genuineness, and a belief in the truthfulness of the communication, without any malicious intent or negligence. It suggests acting with due care and caution, as a reasonable person would in the given circumstances.

In simpler terms, if a doctor honestly tells a patient they are seriously ill to prepare them and help them make informed decisions, the doctor won't be held liable if the patient suffers emotional distress as a result, even if the doctor knew such distress was likely. The law recognizes the necessity of such honest communication in a professional setting.

Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 31

A few examples are:

The Surgeon's Prognosis

A surgeon, acting in good faith, informs a patient of their opinion that the patient is unlikely to survive. The patient, upon hearing this, dies due to the shock. According to BNS Section 31, the surgeon has committed no offense, even though they knew their communication was likely to cause the patient's death. This is because the communication, though harmful in its consequences, was made honestly as the surgeon's professional opinion and was intended for the patient's benefit (e.g., allowing them to make necessary arrangements, say goodbye to loved ones, or make peace with their situation).

Financial Advisor Warning of Risks

A financial advisor, acting in good faith and believing it to be in their client's best interest, warns them about the high risks associated with a particular investment, even though this news causes the client anxiety and worry. The advisor's communication, aimed at protecting the client's financial well-being, would likely fall under the protection of BNS Section 31 if their advice was based on an honest assessment and not driven by any malicious intent.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 93 To BNS Section 31

BNS Section 31 is a verbatim reproduction of IPC Section 93. There are no substantive changes or improvements in the wording or the legal principle being conveyed. The BNS has simply renumbered the section.

The significance of this lies in the continued adherence to the established legal understanding of the protection afforded to communications made in good faith for the benefit of the recipient. The legislature, in enacting the BNS, has chosen to retain this crucial provision without alteration, indicating its continued relevance and importance in the new criminal code. Therefore, the key "change" is merely the section number, from 93 in the IPC to 31 in the BNS. The underlying legal principle and its application remain consistent.

Conclusion

BNS Section 31 (formerly IPC Section 93) is significantly important in addressing the potential for harm caused by communicating while providing the duty to impart information honestly and in the best interests of that person. It is a protection for individuals (especially professionals) who have the responsibility to convey information that is difficult or simply upsetting. The key principles of "good faith" or the intention to act for the "benefit of that person" are vital in whatever way in determining the applicability of this section.

The BNS Section 31 shields from criminal liability well-meaning communications regarding harm that are based simply on the harm that occurs. This legislation, through the protection of benign communications, encourages honesty and transparency in uncomfortable situations because, in the long run, it is in the best interest of the person receiving the communication. That it remains untouched in the BNS legislation and is appropriately still part continues to ensure the Charter, is indicative of its long-reaching importance to the legislative context in India.

FAQ’s About BNS Section 31

A few FAQs are:

Q1 - Why was IPC Section 93 revised and replaced with BNS Section 31?

IPC Section 93 was not specifically revised. The entire Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as part of a comprehensive reform of India's criminal laws. BNS Section 31 is the corresponding provision that re-enacts the principle of protecting communications made in good faith for the benefit of the recipient. The wording remains identical to IPC Section 93; the only change is the section number.

Q2 - What are the main differences between IPC Section 93 and BNS Section 31?

There are no substantive differences between IPC Section 93 and BNS Section 31. The text and the legal principle conveyed are exactly the same. The sole difference is the change in the section number within the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Q3 - Is BNS Section 31 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 31 does not define an offense itself. Instead, it provides an exception to criminal liability for acts (communication) that might otherwise be considered offenses if they cause harm. Therefore, the concept of bailable or non-bailable is not applicable to BNS Section 31 directly. If a communication made in bad faith or without the intention of benefit causes harm that constitutes an offense under other sections of the BNS, the bailability of that underlying offense would be determined by the relevant section.

Q4 - What is the punishment for an offense under BNS Section 31?

BNS Section 31 does not prescribe a punishment because it clarifies situations where an act (communication causing harm) is not an offense. If the communication does not fall under the protection of BNS Section 31 (e.g., made in bad faith or without intention of benefit) and it constitutes an offense under other sections of the BNS, the punishment would be as prescribed in those relevant sections.

Q5 - What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 31?

Similar to the punishment, BNS Section 31 itself does not impose a fine. Any fine would be associated with the specific offense committed by the communication if it does not meet the criteria for protection under BNS Section 31 and falls under other punishable sections of the BNS.

Q6 - Is the offense under BNS Section 31 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 31 does not define an offense. The cognizable or non-cognizable nature of an act (communication causing harm) would depend on whether that act, when considered without the protection of BNS Section 31, constitutes a cognizable or non-cognizable offense under other sections of the BNS.

Q7 - What is the BNS Section 31 equivalent of IPC Section 93?

The BNS Section 31 equivalent of IPC Section 93 is BNS Section 31 itself. It directly replaces and re-enacts the same legal principle concerning the protection of communications made in good faith for the benefit of the recipient, with no changes to the text.