Answer By law4u team
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 37: Acts against which there is no right of private defence
- 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.
- 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.
Brief Detail
BNS Section 37 outlines the circumstances under which the right of private defence does not apply. This includes:
- Acts by public servants or under their direction that do not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt, even if done in good faith.
- Situations where there is sufficient time to seek protection from public authorities.
- The right of private defence is limited to what is necessary and does not allow for inflicting more harm than necessary.
Explanations clarify:
- The right of private defence is not removed if the individual does not know the actor is a public servant.
- The right of private defence is not removed if the person does not know the act is done under a public servant’s direction, unless authority is properly shown.
Question & Answers
Q1: What does BNS Section 37 say about the right of private defence against acts by public servants?
A1: BNS Section 37 specifies that there is no right of private defence against acts by public servants or their directions if these acts do not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt. This applies even if the acts are done in good faith.
Q2: Are there any exceptions where private defence is not allowed according to BNS Section 37?
A2: Yes, private defence is not allowed if:
- The act does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and is done by a public servant or under their direction in good faith.
- There is time to seek protection from public authorities.
- The private defence exceeds what is necessary to defend oneself.
Q3: What does Explanation 1 of BNS Section 37 clarify about the right of private defence?
A3: Explanation 1 clarifies that the right of private defence is not removed if the individual is unaware that the actor is a public servant.
Q4: Under what conditions does Explanation 2 state the right of private defence is not deprived?
A4: Explanation 2 states that the right of private defence is not deprived if the person does not know the act is done under a public servant’s direction unless they are informed of the authority or it is shown in writing if demanded.
Example
Example 1: If a public servant is performing a task that does not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and someone uses force against this action, the use of force would not be justified under the right of private defence.
Example 2: If an individual is attacked by someone who is later revealed to be acting under a public servant’s direction, and the individual had no way of knowing this at the time, their right to private defence remains intact, provided the action was necessary and proportional.
