Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 31
Communication Made in Good Faith
Section 31 protects a communication made in good faith from being treated as an offence by reason of
any harm it causes to the person it is made to, provided the communication is made for that person's
benefit — even where the harm caused is a foreseen, serious consequence such as psychological
shock.
Please note: This page reflects our understanding of the law as of the date it was
last reviewed. Parliament, the State Legislatures, and the courts continue to amend and interpret
this law, and this page may not yet reflect the most recent change. Please verify the current text
of the law independently, and consult a licensed advocate for advice on your own matter, before
relying on this page.
Corresponding Provision Under Prior Law
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 31 is marked
Exact correspondence:
| BNS 31 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|
| 31 | Communication made in good faith | S.93 (word-for-word identical rule and illustration) | Exact |
Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 31 reproduces old IPC Section 93, including its
illustration, without any change whatsoever, down to the exact wording.
Quick Reference
Section 31 is a General Exception — a good-faith communication defence, not itself a
stand-alone offence. It carries no BNSS First Schedule entry and no
cognizable/bailable/compoundable/triable-court classification of its own; it operates as a complete
defence to whatever charge the resulting harm might otherwise attract.
What it requires: the communication was made in good faith; and it was made for the
benefit of the person to whom it was made.
What it protects against: liability for any harm caused to the recipient by the
communication itself — including a foreseen risk of serious harm such as fatal shock —
provided both conditions are met.
Effect where it applies: the act (the communication) is not an offence at all.
Statutory Text (Verbatim)
No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.
Illustration.
A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Honest, beneficial communication is protected even when the truth is shocking
Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)
This section addresses a distinct kind of harm from the earlier sections in this chapter: not physical injury inflicted directly, but the psychological or physiological harm a truthful, good-faith communication can itself cause — most classically, a patient dying of shock on learning a grim medical prognosis. The section removes liability for such harm on two conditions: the communication must be made in good faith, and it must be made for the benefit of the very person receiving it. Notably, the statute's own illustration confirms that this protection holds even where the communicator knew the communication was likely to cause serious harm, including death — foresight of the risk does not defeat the exception, so long as the communication was honest and intended for the recipient's benefit, such as enabling them to prepare for what may come, seek further treatment, or put their affairs in order.
Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)
A doctor, in good faith and believing it necessary for the patient's own planning and peace of mind, informs an elderly patient with a serious heart condition that his condition has worsened significantly and that he should urgently put his affairs in order. The patient, distressed by the news, suffers a fatal cardiac event shortly afterward. Because the doctor's communication was made in good faith and for the patient's own benefit (enabling him to prepare for his declining health), even though the doctor knew the news might cause the patient significant distress, the doctor commits no offence in respect of the patient's death.
Want legal research on any topic or drafting? Order Now →
Related / Cross-Referenced Sections
Section 26 (Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit) and
Section 30 (Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent), the related good-faith,
benefit-of-the-person exceptions covering physical acts rather than communications.
FAQs
Does knowing a communication might cause serious harm defeat this defence?
No. The statute's own illustration confirms the defence holds even where the communicator knew
the communication was likely to cause serious harm, including death, provided it was made in good
faith and for the recipient's benefit.
Does this section protect a communication made for the communicator's own benefit rather than the recipient's?
No. The communication must specifically be made for the benefit of the person to whom it is
made, not for the communicator's own benefit or some third party's.
What is the practical effect if this section applies?
The communication is not an offence at all — it is a complete defence, not merely a factor
reducing punishment.
Spotted something that looks outdated because of a recent amendment, mismatched, or just a
typographical error?
Email us or
message us on Instagram
— it helps us keep this page accurate for everyone who reads it after you.