BNS Section 37 - Acts Against Which There Is No Right Of Private Defence

BNS Section 37 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), serves as the crucial limits on an individual’s right to a private defence. The prior provisions in BNS (BNS Sections 34, 35, and 36) set out and wrap this basic right, and BNS Section 37 provides exception limitations on the right to a private defence. It will also provide situational context, in which even if it is physically possible to arm in defence, the right private defence does not exist, and makes clear that attacking another in defence should never be taken too far. In other words, it establishes the limits of an individual's right to, and duty to engage in defence, when they cannot, and how much force they cannot go beyond. BNS Section 37 is a direct copy and re-statement of previously IPC Section 99, ensuring there are constant restrictions. Establishing the limits of sections in private defence is necessary to ensure an individual does not act in an act of private defence that itself becomes an offence.

In this article, you will get to read about:

• Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 37.
• Key Details.
• Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 37.

Legal Provision

Section 37 of the BNS ‘Acts against which there is no right of private defence’ states:

1. There is no right of private defence,
2. 1. 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;
   2. 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;
   3. 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.

Explanation 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.

Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 37

BNS Section 37 lays down four main conditions under which the right of private defence is either curtailed or does not exist at all:

Against Acts of Public Servants (Good Faith, No Apprehension of Death/Grievous Hurt)

You do not have the right to private defence against an act done or attempted by a public servant (like a police officer, army personnel, etc.) who is acting in good faith under the colour of their office. This applies even if their act is not strictly legal, unless their act reasonably causes you to fear death or grievous hurt (severe injury).

Meaning

If a public servant (e.g., police officer) is doing their duty, even if they make a procedural mistake, you generally cannot use private defence against them, unless their actions put your life or limb in extreme danger. This is to ensure public servants can perform their duties without undue interference.

Against Acts Done by Direction of Public Servants (Good Faith, No Apprehension of Death/Grievous Hurt)

Similarly, you do not have the right of private defence against an act done or attempted by someone acting under the direction of a public servant, provided the public servant is acting in good faith under the colour of their office, and the act does not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Meaning

If a person is following legitimate orders from a public servant (e.g., a civilian assisting a police officer), you cannot use private defence against their actions, unless those actions put you in fear of death or grievous hurt.

When There is Time to Seek Help from Public Authorities

You do not have the right of private defence in situations where you have sufficient time to seek help from public authorities (like the police).

Meaning

Private defence is meant for immediate and unforeseen threats where recourse to law enforcement is not possible. If you can call the police or alert authorities, and they can intervene, you are expected to do so instead of taking matters into your own hands. This emphasizes that private defence is a right of necessity, not convenience.

Proportionality of Force (No More Harm Than Necessary)

Crucially, the right of private defence never extends to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.

Meaning

The force you use must be proportionate to the danger you face. You cannot use excessive force. For example, if someone shoves you, you cannot shoot them. The harm you inflict must be just enough to repel the attack or prevent the mischief.

Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 37

A few such examples are:

Minor Detainment by Police

A police officer, in uniform, tries to stop and frisk you based on reasonable suspicion, but you resist, causing them minor injury. If the frisking does not cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt, you cannot claim private defence against the police officer's lawful (even if procedurally flawed) duty. Your resistance would be an offense (e.g., obstructing a public servant).

Citizen Assisting Police

A police officer directs a civilian to help apprehend a petty thief who is not likely to cause grievous harm. If you resist the civilian, you cannot claim private defence against the civilian's act, as they are acting under the direction of a public servant, and there is no apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 99 To BNS Section 37

BNS Section 37 is a verbatim reproduction of IPC Section 99. There are no substantive changes or improvements in the wording or the underlying legal principles. The BNS has simply renumbered the section.

The significance of this lies in the continued adherence to the long-established legal understanding of the crucial limitations on the right of private defence within the Indian criminal justice system. The legislature, in enacting the BNS, has chosen to retain these precise restrictions without alteration, indicating their enduring relevance in preventing the misuse of this powerful right and ensuring a balanced approach to self-preservation.

Therefore, the key "change" is merely the section number, transitioning from 99 in the IPC to 37 in the BNS. The core limitations and explanations remain consistent.

Conclusion

BNS Section 37, which is an identical copy of its predecessor provision IPC Section 99, is a necessary part of the structure, governing the right of private defence in India. It is an important legal limit, making sure that such a potent right is used fairly and even handedly. BNS Section 37 limits the right of private defence by looking at the exact circumstances where the right does not exist (for example, the person being defended is a public servant acting in good faith and is not causing death or grievous bodily injury, or could seek state protection), along with limiting the force to only that which is necessary, so that the right of private defence is never twisted into a licences to act disgracefully as a vigilante or a licence to retaliate without limit.

The unchanged inclusion of this section in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as a way to ensure the rights of others, particularly those who act lawfully in the enforcement of law, would always excite reform. Practicality, reasonable updating since the title of a regime can have new interpretations in contemporary times, and resolution that means self-help should always be the remedy of last resort, limited by circumstances.

FAQs

A few FAQs are:

Q1 - Why was IPC Section 99 revised and replaced with BNS Section 37?

IPC Section 99 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 37 is the corresponding provision that re-enacts the same limitations on the right of private defence. The wording remains identical to IPC Section 99; the only change is the section number.

Q2 - What are the main differences between IPC Section 99 and BNS Section 37?

There are no substantive differences between IPC Section 99 and BNS Section 37. The text and the legal principles conveyed regarding the restrictions on the right of private defence are exactly the same. The sole difference is the change in the section number within the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (from 99 to 37).

Q3 - Is BNS Section 37 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 37 does not define an offense. Instead, it defines the conditions under which the right of private defence does not exist, or the extent to which it may be exercised. Therefore, the concepts of bailable or non-bailable do not apply directly to BNS Section 37. If an act committed in purported private defence is found to exceed the limits allowed by this section and thus constitutes an offense, the bailability of that underlying offense would be determined by the relevant section of the BNS.

Q4 - What is the punishment for offense under BNS Section 37?

BNS Section 37 does not prescribe a punishment because it clarifies situations where an act is not protected by private defence. If an act committed by an individual is found to be outside the scope of private defence (as defined by Section 37) and constitutes an offense under other sections of the BNS, the punishment would be as prescribed for that specific offense.

Q5 - What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 37?

Similar to punishment, BNS Section 37 itself does not impose a fine. Fines would only be applicable if the act in question is found to be outside the scope of private defence and constitutes a punishable offense under other provisions of the BNS.

Q6 - Is the offense under BNS Section 37 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 37 does not define an offense. The cognizable or non-cognizable nature depends on the specific act committed, if it is determined not to fall under the protection of private defence.

Q7 - What is the BNS Section 37 equivalent of IPC Section 99?

The BNS Section 37 equivalent of IPC Section 99 is BNS Section 37 itself. It directly replaces and re-enacts the same legal principles concerning the acts against which there is no right of private defence, and the extent to which that right may be exercised.