Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 27
Act done in good faith for benefit of child or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent of guardian
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.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule from the old Indian Penal Code (Section 89), recognising that children under 12 and people of unsound mind often cannot give valid legal consent for medical treatment or care. The law allows parents, guardians, or caretakers to make good-faith decisions — like consenting to surgery, medicine, or physical discipline — without fear of criminal liability, as long as they are acting for the person's genuine welfare. But it draws firm lines so this protection can never be twisted into a shield for killing, seriously injuring, or otherwise abusing someone under the excuse of 'helping' them.
How courts read it
Under the identical IPC Section 89, Indian courts have consistently required that 'good faith' involve genuine care and reasonable belief that the action benefits the child or patient — not mere formality. Courts have used this section to protect doctors performing necessary medical procedures on children or mentally ill patients with parental or guardian consent, while rejecting its use as a defence in cases of excessive corporal punishment, medical negligence disguised as treatment, or any deliberate serious harm.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Parents can physically punish or harm their child however they want and call it 'good faith'.
Fact: The law only protects actions genuinely meant to benefit the child, like medical care — not punishment or harm that causes serious injury or death. - Myth: Doctors are automatically protected for any treatment given to children or mentally unsound patients.
Fact: Protection only applies if the treatment was done in good faith for the person's benefit; reckless or non-consensual harmful actions are not covered. - Myth: This law lets guardians consent to literally anything on behalf of the child or patient.
Fact: The law explicitly excludes intentional killing, attempting to kill, or voluntarily causing serious injury, regardless of any 'consent' given.