सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 30

Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

Why this exists

This provision comes from the original Indian Penal Code (Section 92), drafted in the 19th century to handle emergencies where doctors, rescuers, or bystanders must act instantly to save a life or prevent serious harm, without time to get permission. It recognizes that requiring consent in every situation would sometimes cost lives, so it shields good-faith emergency action — while carefully excluding deliberate killing or unrelated harm, to prevent misuse as an excuse for real wrongdoing.

How courts read it

Indian courts have historically treated this provision (as Section 92 IPC) as closely linked to the 'consent' exceptions preceding it, emphasizing that 'good faith' requires genuine care and attention, not mere claims of good intention. Courts have used it mainly in medical negligence and emergency-rescue contexts, distinguishing true life-saving necessity from reckless or self-serving conduct, and have been strict about the provisos — especially refusing protection where death was intended or where the harmful act served no protective purpose.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: This section means doctors can do anything to a patient without consent as long as they call it 'good faith.'
    Fact: The protection is narrow — it only applies when getting consent is truly impossible in time, excludes intentional killing, and excludes harm unrelated to preventing death or serious injury.
  • Myth: If someone dies while you were trying to help them, you're automatically protected.
    Fact: Protection depends on your actual intent and purpose — if your act was reckless or aimed at something other than preventing death or serious harm, this exception won't apply, per the provisos.