Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 37
Acts against which there is no right of private defence
(1) There is no right of private defence, —
(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. 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.
Why this exists
The right of private defence exists so people aren't left helpless when there's no time to seek police help. But this right could be misused to justify violence against lawful government action or excessive force. This provision (carried forward from Section 99 of the old Indian Penal Code) balances individual self-protection against the need to respect lawful state authority and prevent private defence from becoming an excuse for revenge or disproportionate harm.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (IPC Section 99), have consistently held that the right of private defence is not a right to retaliate or take revenge but purely a right to repel imminent danger. Courts have emphasized that the force used must be proportionate to the threat, and have denied the defence where the accused had clear opportunity to seek police protection instead of acting alone. Judgments have also clarified that 'good faith' by a public servant is assessed objectively — reckless or clearly illegal acts by officials do not get this protection.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: You can use force against any police officer if you think what they're doing is illegal.
Fact: If the officer is acting in good faith under their official role, and the act doesn't threaten your life or cause serious injury, you cannot use private defence — you must seek a legal remedy instead. - Myth: Private defence lets you use any level of force you want to protect yourself.
Fact: The law strictly limits force to what is necessary; using more force than needed removes the legal protection of private defence. - Myth: You can always claim self-defence if you were scared, regardless of circumstances.
Fact: If you had time to seek police or authority help instead of acting alone, the right of private defence does not apply.