Section 93

This provision sits among the IPC's 'General Exceptions' (Sections 76-106), which protect actions that look harmful on the surface but lack criminal intent or are justified by circumstance. Section 93 recognizes that honest, well-meaning communication — like a doctor disclosing a difficult diagnosis or prognosis — can cause psychological or emotional harm without being blameworthy. Colonial-era drafters, including Macaulay's law commission, wanted to ensure that truthful, good-faith disclosures meant to help someone were not criminalized merely because the recipient was distressed by the truth.

This exception has not generated a large body of high-profile case law, since it mainly operates as a defense in medical, family, or advisory contexts (such as a doctor informing a patient of a terminal illness). Courts generally read it alongside Section 52 (definition of 'good faith,' meaning due care and attention) to test whether the communicator acted honestly and diligently, and whether the disclosure was genuinely intended for the recipient's benefit rather than to harass, defame, or mislead.

• Myth: Any truthful statement that upsets someone is automatically protected under this section.
  Fact: The protection only applies if the statement was made in good faith (honestly and carefully) and specifically for the benefit of the person harmed — not for gossip, revenge, or careless disclosure.
• Myth: This section allows people to say hurtful things to third parties as long as they meant well.
  Fact: The exception only covers harm to the person the communication is made *to* — not harm caused to other people who hear about it.