Section 27 protects an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or a person of unsound mind, by or with the consent of that person's guardian or other lawful caretaker — subject to four provisos that carve out intentional or reckless killing, wilful grievous hurt outside a genuine curative purpose, and abetting an offence the exception would not itself cover.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 27 is marked Exact correspondence:
| BNS 27 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | Act done in good faith for benefit of child or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent of, guardian | S.89 (same rule, provisos, and illustration) | Exact |
Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 27 reproduces old IPC Section 89's rule, its four provisos, and its illustration without substantive change. The main difference found is a terminology modernization: the BNS version refers to a “person of unsound mind,” where the IPC version used the older term “insane person” in its marginal title (both versions use “of unsound mind” in the operative body text itself) — a wording modernization only, with the same legal meaning. Two further points of form: the BNS adds the word “person” before “of unsound mind” in the operative text, and the IPC set out the four carve-outs as numbered provisos (“First” to “Fourthly”) whereas the BNS presents them as a single proviso with four lettered clauses (a) to (d).
Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:
Provided that this exception shall not extend to—
(a) the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;
(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(c) the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.
Illustration.
A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, in as much as his object was the cure of the child.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
The main rule protects an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or a person of unsound mind, by or with the express or implied consent of that person's guardian or other person having lawful charge of them. Such an act is not an offence by reason of any harm it may cause, be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause to that person. This is what allows a guardian to authorise even risky treatment for someone who cannot consent for themselves, so long as the act is genuinely for that person's benefit. The proviso then lists four things the exception never covers, however good the faith and however clear the guardian's consent: (a) intentionally causing death, or attempting to do so; (b) doing anything the doer knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than preventing death or grievous hurt, or curing a grievous disease or infirmity; (c) voluntarily causing grievous hurt, or attempting to, unless for that same preventive or curative purpose; and (d) abetting any offence to which the exception itself would not extend. Clauses (b) and (c) share one test, the preventive-or-curative purpose, which is what separates genuinely therapeutic but risky treatment (protected) from a known lethal or seriously harmful act done for any other reason (not protected). Clause (d) simply ensures that helping or encouraging an act cannot earn wider protection than doing it would.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 27 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
The Court held that a mother's consent could not substitute for the patient's own consent, since the patient was a competent adult, not a minor or a person of unsound mind -- marking the outer limit of guardian-consent protection by contrast with BNS S.27's minor/unsound-mind case.
No. The first proviso excludes intentional causing of death, or attempting it, from this exception entirely, regardless of good faith or the guardian's consent.
No. It specifically covers a person under twelve years of age, or a person of unsound mind of any age. A person twelve or older who is not of unsound mind falls outside this section.
The act is not an offence at all — it is a complete defence, not merely a factor reducing punishment, but only where none of the four provisos is triggered.