IPC Section 99 : Acts Against Which There Is No Right Of Private Defence

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines various offences and prescribes corresponding punishments. Among its many provisions, Sections 96 to 106 deal with the "Right of Private Defence." Section 99 of the IPC, however, carves out specific exceptions, delineating situations where this right cannot be exercised. This article delves into the nuances of Section 99, examining its legal implications, scope, and the reasoning behind its provisions.

Legal Provision Of Section 99 of the IPC

Section 99 of the IPC reads as follows:

There is no right of private defence 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. There is no right of private defence 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. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised.—

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.

Key Elements Of Section 99 of the IPC

The key elements of Section 99 of the IPC are as follows:

1. Acts by Public Servants Acting in Good Faith

The right of private defence cannot be exercised against acts performed by public servants if:

• The act is done in good faith, even if it is not strictly justifiable by law.
• The act does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Explanation: Public servants often need to act in situations that require immediate action, such as maintaining law and order or conducting investigations. Section 99 prevents individuals from obstructing such actions, provided the public servant acts in good faith under the colour of their office. This provision ensures that the functioning of public institutions is not hindered by claims of private defence.

Illustration:
Suppose a police officer enters a house without a warrant to prevent a crime. In that case, the occupant cannot claim the right of private defence to harm the officer unless the officer’s actions pose a reasonable threat of death or grievous hurt.

2. Acts Done Under the Direction of a Public Servant

Similarly, no right of private defence exists against acts performed under the directions of a public servant acting in good faith.

Explanation: Subordinates or agents acting on a public servant’s instructions are also protected under this provision. It recognizes the hierarchical nature of public service and ensures that lawful orders are followed without fear of resistance in the name of private defence.

3. Availability of Protection from Public Authorities

The law denies the right of private defence if the individual has sufficient time to seek protection from public authorities.

Explanation: This provision emphasizes the preventive nature of private defence. If there is time to approach public authorities for assistance, taking matters into one’s own hands is unnecessary and discouraged.

Illustration:
If a neighbor repeatedly threatens a person’s property, but there is no immediate danger of harm, the individual should report the matter to the police rather than resorting to private defence measures.

4. Proportionality of the Harm Inflicted

Section 99 clearly states that the harm inflicted in the name of private defence must not exceed what is necessary for the purpose of defence.

Explanation: The right of private defence is not a license to retaliate disproportionately. The force used must be commensurate with the threat faced.

Illustration:
If an individual is slapped, they cannot claim private defence to justify using a weapon against the aggressor.

Key Details Of IPC Section 99 Of The IPC

Exceptions And Explanations In Detail

Explanation 1: Knowledge of the Public Servant’s Identity

The individual’s right of private defence is preserved if they do not know, or have no reasonable means of knowing, that the person committing the act is a public servant. This clause ensures that the individual is not penalized for defending themselves against an unknown aggressor, even if that aggressor is a public servant acting in good faith.

Explanation 2: Demand for Authority

If a public servant or their agent fails to produce proper authorization when demanded, the right of private defence may still be exercised. This provision balances the authority of public servants with the rights of individuals, ensuring accountability and transparency.

Landmark Case Laws

Jograj Mahato vs Emperor

In this case, Jograji Mahto and his son Rambilas Mahto were convicted under Sections 225 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by a Magistrate in Samastipur. They were sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20 each under Section 225, and another one-year sentence under Section 323, to run concurrently. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, was dismissed. The incident occurred on March 10, 1939, when they rescued an absconding dacoity suspect, Faujdar Gope, from a chaukidar, assaulting him with lathis during the escape. Despite resistance, the suspects overpowered the chaukidar and fled with Faujdar.

Kesho Ram vs. Delhi Administration

Here, the Supreme Court addressed whether municipal inspectors could seize a buffalo without prior notice for unpaid milk tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Kesho Ram, resisting the seizure, fractured an inspector's nose and claimed self-defense, arguing the seizure was illegal due to lack of notice. The Court upheld his conviction under Sections 353, 332, and 333 of the IPC but reduced his sentence. It ruled that while inspectors acted in good faith, their interpretation of the law was flawed. The judgment emphasized fair procedural safeguards to avoid excessive enforcement powers.

Criticisms And Challenges

1. Ambiguity in "Good Faith"
   The term "good faith" is subjective and often open to interpretation. Critics argue that this ambiguity can lead to misuse or abuse of power by public servants.
2. Potential for Misuse
   There is a risk that public servants might exploit the protection offered by Section 99 to justify unlawful actions, knowing that they are shielded from claims of private defence.
3. Burden of Proof
   The burden of proving that an act was done in good faith often falls on the accused public servant, which can complicate judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

Section 99 of the IPC is a critical provision that delineates the boundaries of the right of private defence. By exempting certain acts—especially those performed by public servants in good faith—from the purview of this right, the section ensures that the law is not misused to obstruct legitimate actions. However, the provision is not without its challenges, particularly regarding its potential for misuse and the subjective interpretation of key terms like "good faith."

Ultimately, Section 99 reflects the IPC’s broader philosophy of balancing individual rights with the greater public good, ensuring that justice is served while maintaining the rule of law.

FAQs On IPC Section 99

Q1. What are the situations where the right of private defence is not applicable under Section 99?

Under Section 99 of the IPC, the right of private defence is not applicable in the following situations:

• Acts by Public Servants in Good Faith: When a public servant acts in good faith under the color of their office, even if the act is not strictly justifiable by law, and it does not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
• Acts Done Under Direction of a Public Servant: When a person acts under the direction of a public servant in good faith, even if the direction is not strictly justifiable by law.
• Availability of Protection from Public Authorities: When there is sufficient time to seek protection from public authorities instead of resorting to private defence.

Q2. What does "good faith" mean in the context of Section 99, and how does it affect the right of private defence?

"Good faith" refers to actions performed honestly and without malice, even if they are not legally perfect. In the context of Section 99, if a public servant acts in good faith under the color of their office, individuals cannot exercise the right of private defence against such acts unless the actions reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The subjective nature of "good faith" ensures that public servants can perform their duties without undue interference, but it also leaves room for judicial interpretation to check potential misuse.

Q3. Can private defence be exercised if the identity or authority of the public servant is not known?

Yes, an individual retains the right of private defence if they do not know or have no reasonable means to know that the person performing the act is a public servant or acting under the direction of one. Additionally:

• If the public servant fails to clearly state their authority, or
• If the public servant cannot produce written authorization upon demand,
  the individual may exercise the right of private defence. This provision ensures that public servants are accountable for their actions and that individuals are not unfairly penalized for defending themselves.

References

1. https://www.vantalegal.com/law-services/understanding-ipc-section-99-a-comprehensive-guide/
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-body-under-ipc/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/571227/