TASK 1 DATED (10-MAR-2025)

WHAT ARE ALL EXCEPTIONS TO THE BNS? PROVIDE A DETAILED

EXPLATION OF EACH EXCEPTION?

INTRODUCTION

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, serves as India's comprehensive criminal code,
replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860. Integral to this legal framework are the
"General Exceptions" outlined in Chapter III, encompassing Sections 14 to 44. These
exceptions delineate circumstances under which acts, otherwise deemed criminal, may be
considered lawful or excusable, ensuring justice by acknowledging factors like intent,
compulsion, or mental incapacity.

BELOW IS A DETAILED EXPLORATION OF EACH EXCEPTION,

SUPPLEMENTED WITH ILLUSTRATIVE CASE LAWS:

1. Act Done by a Person Bound, or by Mistake of Fact Believing Himself Bound,

by Law (Section 14):

Explanation: An individual is not culpable for an act if they are legally obligated to
perform it or, due to a factual mistake (not a legal one), genuinely believe they are
so obligated.

Illustrative Case: In State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik, an individual acted under

the mistaken belief that he was legally bound to perform certain duties, leading to
the commission of an act. The court examined whether his belief was based on a
mistake of fact, thereby determining his culpability.

2. Act of Judge When Acting Judicially (Section 15):

Explanation: Judges are exempt from criminal liability for actions taken in their
judicial capacity, provided these actions are within their legal authority or believed
in good faith to be so.

Illustrative Case: In Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, a judge's

actions within his judicial capacity were scrutinized to determine if they fell within
the ambit of this exception, emphasizing the protection granted to judicial acts
performed in good faith.

3. Act Done Pursuant to Judgment or Order of Court (Section 16):

 Explanation: Actions executed in accordance with a court's judgment or order are
not offenses, even if the court lacked jurisdiction, as long as the individual acted in
good faith, believing the court had such authority.

Illustrative Case: In R. v. Anderson, an officer executed a warrant issued by a court

lacking jurisdiction. The court held that the officer's good faith belief in the court's
authority shielded him from criminal liability.

4. Act Done by a Person Justified, or by Mistake of Fact Believing Himself

Justified, by Law (Section 17):

Explanation: If a person is legally justified in performing an act, or due to a factual

mistake believes in good faith that they are justified, the act is not considered an
offense.

Illustrative Case: In Chirangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the accused, under a

mistaken belief of justification, committed an act. The court evaluated whether his
belief was based on a factual mistake, thereby influencing his culpability.

5. Accident in Doing a Lawful Act (Section 18):

Explanation: An act resulting in unintended harm during the lawful execution of a

lawful act, conducted with proper care and caution, is not deemed an offense.

Illustrative Case: In State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi, a hunter lawfully hunting

animals accidentally caused harm to a person. The court considered whether the
harm was accidental during the lawful act and if proper caution was exercised.

6. Act Likely to Cause Harm, but Done Without Criminal Intent, and to Prevent
Other Harm (Section 19):

Explanation: An act that may cause harm is not an offense if done without criminal
intent and in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm to person or property.

Illustrative Case: In R. v. Dudley and Stephens, sailors, to prevent their own

starvation, killed and ate a cabin boy. The court examined the necessity and intent
behind the act to determine criminal liability.

7. Act of a Child Under Seven Years of Age (Section 20):

Explanation: A child under seven is considered incapable of committing an offense.

 Illustrative Case: In Marimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, a child below seven
accidentally caused harm. The court reinforced the principle that children under
seven lack the capacity to commit offenses.

8. Act of a Child Above Seven and Under Twelve Years of Age of Immature
Understanding (Section 21):

Explanation: A child between seven and twelve years old is not deemed to have
committed an offense if they lack sufficient maturity to understand the nature and
consequences of their actions.

Illustrative Case: In Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar, a child aged ten committed
an act. The court assessed the child's maturity to understand the nature and
consequences of the act to determine liability.

9. Act of a Person of Unsound Mind (Section 22):

Explanation: An individual is not criminally responsible for an act if, at the time,
they were incapable of understanding its nature or that it was wrong or contrary to
law due to mental illness.

Illustrative Case: In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, the accused's mental

state at the time of the offense was scrutinized to determine if he could comprehend
the nature of his actions, influencing his criminal responsibility.

10.Act of a Person Incapable of Judgment by Reason of Intoxication Caused

Against His Will (Section 23):

Explanation: An act committed by someone who, due to involuntary intoxication, is

incapable of understanding its nature or that it is wrong or illegal, is not considered
an offense.

Illustrative Case: In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, the accused

committed an act under involuntary intoxication. The court examined whether the
intoxication impaired his ability to understand the nature of the act, affecting his
culpability.

11.Offense Requiring a Particular Intent or Knowledge Committed by One Who

is Intoxicated (Section 24):

Explanation: If an offense requires specific intent or knowledge, and the individual

commits it while intoxicated (unless involuntarily), they are considered to have the
same intent or knowledge as if they were sober.
12.Consent (Section 25):

Explanation: An act is not considered an offense if it is performed with the consent

of the person who suffers harm, provided that the person consenting is legally
competent to give consent and the act is not intended to cause death or grievous
hurt.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Donovan, the defendant caned a woman with her consent
for sexual gratification, resulting in bodily harm. The court held that consent is not a
defense to acts causing bodily harm unless the activity has social utility, like sports.

13.Act Not Intended and Not Known to Be Likely to Cause Death or Grievous
Hurt, Done by Consent (Section 26):

Explanation: An act causing harm is not an offense if done with the consent of the
person harmed, provided the act was not intended to cause death or grievous hurt,
nor known to be likely to cause such harm.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Brown, a group engaged in consensual sadomasochistic

activities resulting in injuries. The court ruled that consent was not a defense to
actual bodily harm inflicted during such activities.

14.Act Done in Good Faith for Benefit of a Person Without Consent (Section 27)

Explanation: An act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their
consent is not an offense if circumstances render it impossible for that person to
signify consent, and the act does not intend to cause death.

Illustrative Case: In Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, a doctor performed

emergency surgery on an unconscious patient without consent to save the patient's
life. The court held that the doctor's actions were justified under this exception.

15.Act Done in Good Faith for Benefit of Child or Insane Person, by or by

Consent of Guardian (Section 28):

Explanation: An act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of
unsound mind, either by or with the consent of their guardian, is not an offense,
provided it does not intentionally cause death.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Prince, the defendant took an underage girl out of the
possession of her father, believing she was older. The court held that mistake of age
 was not a defense, but the act done in good faith with the guardian's consent could
be considered under this exception.

16.Consent to Suffer Harm (Section 29):

Explanation: An act is not an offense merely because it causes harm, if the person
harmed consented to suffer that harm, provided no grievous hurt is caused, and the
act is not an offense independently of the harm caused.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Wilson, a husband branded his initials on his wife's

buttocks with her consent. The court accepted consent as a defense, distinguishing
the case from R v. Brown, as the act was considered akin to tattooing.

17.Act Done in Prevention of Harm to Person or Property (Section 30):

Explanation: An act done to prevent or avoid harm to a person or property is not an

offense if done without criminal intent and in good faith, even if it causes harm.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Dudley and Stephens, sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to
survive after being stranded. The court rejected the defense of necessity, but the
case highlights the complexities of acts done to prevent greater harm.

18.Communication Made in Good Faith (Section 31):

Explanation: A communication made in good faith to a person for their benefit is

not an offense, even if it causes harm, provided the harm was not intended.

Illustrative Case: In Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt, a doctor informed a patient about

the severity of their illness in good faith, leading to the patient's distress. The court
held that the doctor was protected under this exception.

19.Act to Which a Person is Compelled by Threat (Section 32):

Explanation: An act is not an offense if the person does it under compulsion or

threat, which reasonably causes apprehension of instant death, provided the person
is not voluntarily placing themselves in such a situation.

Illustrative Case: In R v. Hasan, the defendant claimed he committed burglary

under duress from threats of violence. The court outlined that duress is not a defense
to murder but may apply to other offenses if the threat is immediate and
unavoidable.

20.Act Causing Slight Harm (Section 33):

 Explanation: An act that causes slight harm is not an offense if the harm is so slight
that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain about it.

Illustrative Case: In A v. UK, a father disciplined his child, causing minor bruises.
The European Court of Human Rights held that even slight harm could be
unacceptable, leading to changes in domestic law regarding corporal punishment.

CONCLUSION

The General Exceptions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 serve as essential
safeguards in criminal law, ensuring that justice is administered with fairness and reason.
These provisions acknowledge that not all acts that meet the technical definition of a crime
should be punished, as factors such as lack of intent, mistake of fact, necessity, self-
defense, consent, insanity, and compulsion can render a person legally excusable.

By incorporating these exceptions, the BNS strikes a balance between individual

responsibility and fairness, preventing wrongful punishment while ensuring that genuine
offenders are held accountable. The law recognizes that circumstances matter—whether
it’s a child lacking maturity, a person acting under duress, or someone making a genuine
mistake. These principles are reinforced through judicial interpretations and landmark case
laws, demonstrating that justice is not just about strict legal adherence but about
understanding human behavior, intent, and moral responsibility.

Ultimately, the General Exceptions reflect a progressive and humane approach to criminal
law, aligning legal accountability with principles of equity, fairness, and social justice.
TASK 2 OF DATED (10-MAR-2025

WHAT I S THE SUMMARY OF RECENT CASE OF PRABIR PURKAYASTHA

V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND WHAT KEY POINTS DID THE COURT
HOLD IN ITS DECISION?

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court addressed
significant issues concerning the rights of individuals upon arrest. Prabir Purkayastha, a
prominent journalist and founder of Newsclick, was arrested under allegations related to
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He
challenged his arrest on the grounds that he was not informed of the specific reasons for
his detention, neither orally nor in writing, at the time of arrest.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor-in-chief of Newsclick, was arrested on October
3, 2023, by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations against him were related to foreign funding
and purportedly anti-national activities.

Purkayastha challenged his arrest on the grounds that:

 He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest in writing at the time of detention.
 There were procedural lapses in his remand hearing, violating his rights.

KEY ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

1. Whether Purkayastha’s Arrest Violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution

Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees that an arrested person must be
informed of the reasons for arrest and must have the right to consult a legal
practitioner. Purkayastha argued that he was not given a written copy of his grounds
of arrest, which hampered his ability to challenge his detention.

2. Whether the Distinction Between ‘Grounds of Arrest’ and ‘Reasons of Arrest’

Was Ignored
 The defense argued that merely stating broad reasons (such as UAPA violations)
does not meet the legal standard. The specific grounds for arrest must be
communicated to the accused, not just the general offense category.

3. Whether the Remand Proceedings Followed Due Process

During the remand hearing, the police sought Purkayastha’s custody, but his lawyer
was not given a copy of the remand application in advance. This raised concerns
about whether the proceedings were fair and transparent.

SUPREME COURT’S KEY FINDINGS AND LEGAL REASONING

1. Failure to Provide Written Grounds of Arrest is a Violation of Fundamental

Rights

The Court emphasized that under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, a person must be
informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest. The Court ruled that:
 The right to be informed of arrest grounds is a fundamental right, not just a
procedural formality.
 The information must be in writing, not just oral communication.
 This right ensures that an individual can take immediate legal action and
defend themselves.
 Since Purkayastha was not provided with a written copy of the arrest grounds
at the time of his arrest, his detention was declared unlawful.

2. Distinction Between ‘Reasons of Arrest’ and ‘Grounds of Arrest’

The Court made an important distinction:

 ‘Reasons of arrest’ are general justifications for the police action (e.g.,
national security concerns, UAPA violation).
 ‘Grounds of arrest’ are specific facts and allegations against the accused,
which must be disclosed in writing.
 The Court found that Purkayastha was only informed of broad reasons but not
specific grounds, violating his legal rights.

3. Remand Proceedings Were Procedurally Flawed

The Court noted the following irregularities in Purkayastha’s remand proceedings:

 His counsel was not given a prior copy of the remand application, preventing a
fair defense.
 There was no proper judicial examination of the necessity for custody.
 Since remand is not automatic and must be justified, these failures rendered
the proceedings unfair.
 4. Arrest Declared Unlawful – Immediate Release Ordered

Due to these violations, the Court quashed the arrest and detention of Purkayastha
and ordered his immediate release.

KEY POINTS HELD BY THE COURT:

1. Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest: The Court underscored that any

individual arrested has a fundamental right to be informed about the grounds of
arrest in writing at the earliest opportunity. This ensures the person can make an
effective representation against the detention, aligning with Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.

2. Distinction Between 'Grounds of Arrest' and 'Reasons of Arrest': The Court

clarified that 'grounds of arrest' are personal to the accused and must be
communicated explicitly, whereas 'reasons of arrest' are more general. Failure to
provide the specific grounds compromises the individual's ability to defend against
the arrest.

3. Procedural Lapses during Remand: The Court noted procedural irregularities

during Purkayastha's remand proceedings. He was presented before the magistrate
without prior notice to his counsel, and the remand was sought without providing
him with the grounds of arrest, violating his constitutional rights.

4. Release from Custody: Given these violations, the Supreme Court ordered the
immediate release of Prabir Purkayastha, deeming his arrest and subsequent
detention unlawful due to non-compliance with constitutional and procedural
safeguards.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT

1. Reinforcement of Constitutional Safeguards Against Arbitrary Arrests

The Court’s decision upholds the principle that no person should be detained
arbitrarily, ensuring that law enforcement agencies follow due process.

2. Clarifies the Duty of Law Enforcement in Informing Arrested Persons

The ruling sets a precedent that police must:

 Provide a written copy of the arrest grounds at the time of detention.
 Ensure that the accused can challenge the arrest in court effectively.

3. Protects Journalistic Freedom and Civil Liberties

 Given that Purkayastha is a journalist, the judgment is seen as a victory for press
freedom and civil rights, reaffirming that fundamental rights cannot be suspended on
vague allegations.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a landmark
ruling reinforcing constitutional rights regarding arrest and detention. Below is a detailed
breakdown of the case, the issues involved, and the key legal finding.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a crucial
decision on personal liberty. It strengthens the legal requirement that authorities must
follow proper arrest procedures and ensures greater transparency in custodial matters. The
judgment sends a clear message that procedural violations will not be tolerated, even in
cases involving stringent laws like UAPA.

This judgment reinforces the imperative that law enforcement agencies adhere strictly to
constitutional mandates when depriving individuals of their liberty, ensuring that arrests
are conducted transparently and with due process.