BNS Section 31:Communication made in good faith.

Amit Kapoor05 mins

Communication made in good faith

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.

IllustrationsA, 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.

Example:
Doctor tells Vijay that he has a serious health problem that needs urgent care. Vijay gets a heart attack due to this shocking news. Here, the doctor told Vijay about his health in good faith and for Vijay’s benefit. Here, the doctor has committed no offence. 

Key Points on BNS-31 (Exception to Criminal Liability for Communication Made in Good Faith)

BNS-31 provides an exception to criminal liability for communications made with good intentions, even if the communication causes harm to the person it is directed to, as long as it is done for their benefit.

1. Communication Made in Good Faith

  • The core idea of this section is that no communication will be considered a criminal offense if:
    • It is made with good intentions.
    • It is made for the benefit of the person receiving the communication.
  • Good faith means the communication is made honestly and with the welfare of the individual in mind, without any malice or ill intent.

2. No Offense Despite Harm

  • Even if the communication results in harm (e.g., emotional or psychological distress), it will not be considered an offense if the intention was to help or benefit the individual.
  • Example: A doctor informing a patient that they have a terminal illness may cause emotional distress, but the doctor will not be held liable because the communication was made in good faith and for the patient’s benefit.

3. Illustration

  • Example in the law: A surgeon tells a patient that they are unlikely to survive a procedure, and the patient dies from the shock of the news.
  • Outcome: Even though the surgeon knew the communication might cause emotional shock leading to the patient’s death, they are not guilty of an offense because the statement was made in good faith, with the intention of informing the patient.

Purpose of BNS-31:

This section protects professionals (like doctors, surgeons, or anyone in a similar position) who may need to deliver difficult or painful truths. It ensures they are not penalized for trying to inform or benefit the individual, even if the communication unintentionally leads to harm. It highlights the importance of honest, good-faith communication in situations where truth must be conveyed for the individual’s welfare.

Conclusion:

BNS-31 ensures that individuals who make difficult but necessary communications in good faith—such as doctors breaking bad news—are not criminalized, even if their words unintentionally cause harm. It acknowledges that truthful communication, even when painful, can be important for the person’s benefit.

Related News