Introduction of BNS Section 19
BNS Section 19 Sometimes, people do things that might cause harm, but they do not mean to do anything wrong. These actions are often done to prevent something worse from happening. The law understands this and may not consider these actions as crimes if they were done to stop greater harm.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 19 replaces the old Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 81.
What is BNS Section 19 ?
BNS Section 19 is an act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, refers to a situation where a person does something that might cause damage or injury, but they do it to prevent a bigger problem. The person does not intend to cause harm but acts to stop something worse.
BNS Section 19 in Simple Points
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
(This provision corresponds to IPC Section 81, updated under BNS 2023.)
1. Meaning of Section 19
BNS Section 19 protects a person from criminal liability when an act causes harm but is done to prevent greater harm. The law recognizes that sometimes urgent action is needed, and if such action is taken in good faith, without criminal intent, it is not treated as an offence.
Example: A person breaks the glass of a locked car to rescue a child trapped inside. The damage is caused, but the intention was to prevent serious harm.
2. Purpose of Section 19
The main purpose of this section is to:
- Allow urgent action in emergencies to prevent bigger harm.
- Protect people who act in good faith without criminal intent.
- Apply the principle of necessity in law — a smaller harm is allowed to prevent a bigger harm.
- Ensure fairness by recognizing genuine emergency actions.
3. Essential Ingredients of Section 19
For this section to apply, certain conditions must exist:
- Knowledge of Harm: The person knows some harm may occur.
- No Criminal Intention: The act is not done to deliberately cause harm.
- Good Faith: The person acts honestly, believing it is necessary.
- Purpose: The act is done to prevent or avoid greater harm.
- Proportionality: The harm caused must be lesser than the harm avoided.
4. Punishment under BNS Section 19
- No Criminal Liability: If the conditions are satisfied, the person is not guilty of an offence.
- Civil Liability Possible: The person may still need to compensate for damages caused (e.g., repair costs for broken property).
5. Examples of BNS Section 19 in Action
- Breaking Property: A person breaks a shop shutter during a fire to rescue people inside — no criminal offence.
- Driving Emergency: A driver swerves his vehicle suddenly to avoid school children and accidentally hits a pole — not a crime.
- Cutting Trees: Authorities cut trees to prevent a wildfire from spreading to a village — lawful under this section.
6. Importance of BNS Section 19
- Protects emergency actions done in good faith.
- Balances individual rights with larger social safety.
- Prevents misuse of criminal law against people saving lives or property.
- Updates IPC Section 81 to modern legal language.
- Reflects the doctrine of “necessity knows no law.”
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 19
1. Using force: emergency medical acts
When a doctor performs life-saving treatment without the patient’s consent because there’s no time to get permission, that use of force or interference is often protected. The law recognises that in medical emergencies delaying treatment to obtain consent could cause death or grave harm, so a reasonable, necessary intervention done in good faith will not be treated as a crime. The protection still expects the doctor to act professionally and only as much as required to save life or prevent serious injury.
2. No criminal intention (mens rea is absent)
A central idea is that criminal liability usually requires a guilty mind — an intention to do wrong. If the actor never intended harm but acted only to avoid a greater danger, that mens rea is missing. In other words, if your motive was to prevent loss of life or property rather than to injure or steal, the legal system treats your action differently from deliberate wrongdoing.
3. Good-faith requirement
The protection only applies when the person honestly believes their action is necessary and acts sincerely to avert danger. “Good faith” means the actor genuinely thinks the act was the right thing to do under the circumstances. If someone uses the emergency excuse as a cover for selfish or malicious behavior, they lose that defence — good faith is the dividing line between justified emergency action and punishable misconduct.
4. Emergency and urgency
These rules are aimed at sudden, urgent situations where there is no realistic time to ask for legal permission or to follow the normal procedures. Think of a building on fire, a collapsed bridge, or a victim needing immediate CPR. The law recognises that when seconds count, waiting for formalities can produce worse harm, so it allows reasonable immediate action.
5. Doctrine of necessity
The legal principle behind these protections is often called the “doctrine of necessity” — the idea that preventing a serious harm can justify a minor, otherwise illegal act. It’s not a blank cheque: necessity is only accepted where the act genuinely prevents larger harm that would otherwise occur. The doctrine balances strict legal rules with the practical need to avoid catastrophic outcomes.
6. Preventing greater harm
A key test is whether the act aimed at averting a greater evil. Breaking a car window to rescue a child from heat, cutting a fence to pull someone from a sinking boat, or forcing entry to put out a fire are classic examples: a small, immediate wrong (breaking property) is tolerated because it prevents a much larger harm (death or serious injury).
7. Proportionality of risk
Protection depends on proportionality — the harm caused by your action must be no greater than the harm you were trying to avoid. If a minor problem could have been solved with a less destructive measure, or if the actor’s response was wildly excessive, the emergency defence will usually fail. Proportionality keeps the doctrine from being abused and forces reasonable judgment under pressure.
8. Legal protection from criminal liability
When the conditions (urgency, good faith, absence of malicious intent, proportionality) are met, the actor typically enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for the emergency act. That means the state should not treat a necessary, reasonable emergency response as a crime. Courts will look at the whole context to decide whether the protection applies.
9. Civil liability still exists
Even if criminal charges are not appropriate, the person who acted in an emergency can still be required to compensate for loss or damage in civil court. For example, breaking a shop door to rescue someone may be legally defensible criminally, but the shop owner might seek damages for the broken door. Criminal immunity does not automatically erase civil responsibility or the duty to make good obvious losses.
10. Case-by-case evaluation
Courts assess emergency defences case by case. They will ask: was there a real and immediate danger? Was the response reasonable and proportionate? Did the actor genuinely believe the action was necessary? Could a less harmful alternative have worked? The answers depend on the evidence, timing, and circumstances; there’s no automatic pass for every urgent action.
Comparison: BNS Section 19 vs IPC Section 81
| Section | Offense | Punishment | Bailable / Non-Bailable | Cognizable / Non-Cognizable | Trial By |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNS Section 19 | Act causing harm, but done without criminal intent and in good faith to prevent greater harm. | No punishment if conditions are met (good faith, no intent, necessity). | Depends on underlying act (section is exculpatory) | Cognizability determined by substantive offence | Ordinary criminal courts |
| IPC Section 81 (Old) | Similar principle under IPC — act not offence if done without intent, in good faith, to prevent greater harm. | No punishment, but civil liability may remain. | Dependent on IPC offence avoided | Same rule — depends on main offence | Criminal courts under IPC system |
BNS Section 19 FAQs
What does “likely to cause harm without criminal intent” mean?
It means doing something that might cause harm, but only to prevent a bigger problem, without wanting to do anything wrong.
Is this kind of act a crime?
No, if done to prevent something worse, it’s usually not considered a crime.
Can someone be punished for this act?
The person might not be criminally punished but could still be responsible for any damage caused.
What does “good faith” mean?
It means the person honestly believes their action is necessary to stop a bigger problem.
Conclusion
BNS Section 19 ensures that people acting in good faith during emergencies are not unfairly punished. It balances human safety and justice, protecting those who act responsibly to prevent greater harm. However, while criminal charges may be avoided, civil liability for damages may still exist.
This provision helps society trust that in urgent situations, immediate action is legally supported as long as it is reasonable, proportionate, and without wrongful intent.
Need Legal Support?
If you are dealing with court cases, marriage problems, or any other legal issue, our team at Marriage Solution – Lawyer Help is here for you. Simply fill out our quick online enquiry form, and we’ll connect you with the right legal expert to support your needs.
Finished with BNS Section 19? Continue exploring the next provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Each section includes explanations, examples, and plain-language breakdowns for easy understanding.
- BNS Section 20 — Act of a child under seven years of age
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-section-20/ - BNS Section 21 — Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-section-21/ - BNS Section 22 — Act of a person of mental illness
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-section-22/ - BNS Section 23 — Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-section-23/ - BNS Section 24 — Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-section-24/ - BNS Section 25 — Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-25/ - BNS Section 26 — Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit
https://marriagesolution.in/bns_section/bns-26/
Full BNSS Section List: https://marriagesolution.in/bnss_section-list
Full IPC Section List: https://marriagesolution.in/ipc-section-list
Full Indian Law & Blogs: https://marriagesolution.in/indian-law/