Communication in Good Faith as General Exception: Section 31 BNS

A doctor tells a patient that his cancer is terminal. The patient dies of the shock. A friend tells another friend that his business partner has embezzled from him. The friend suffers a heart attack. A relative tells a young woman that her fiance is unfaithful. She is deeply harmed. In each case, the communicator did not intend the harm. In each case, the communication was made in good faith for the recipient's benefit. Should the communicator be criminally liable for the resulting harm? Section 31 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, answers no. This module walks through the section, its rationale, and its interaction with medical practice and professional life.

1. Meaning and Concept

The problem of harmful communication

Human beings are fragile. Truth, even truth told with the best of intentions, can wound. A doctor telling a patient of a fatal prognosis, a friend passing on a difficult truth about a family member, a professional communicating a business failure to a partner, all risk causing serious harm to the recipient. If the criminal law treated the resulting harm as an offence, the flow of important information in society would freeze. Doctors would conceal diagnoses, advisers would withhold advice, and friends would keep unwelcome truths to themselves. The result would be worse for everyone.

The rationale of the exception

The three considerations that support Section 31

Social utility. The free flow of important information, particularly difficult information, is essential to individual welfare and to the functioning of society.
Absence of criminal fault. The person who communicates in good faith, for the recipient's benefit, has no criminal intention and no criminal knowledge in the required sense. His mind is not the mind of an offender.
Balance of interests. The recipient's interest in receiving accurate information usually outweighs the risk of harm from receiving it. Where the communicator has acted with due care and for the recipient's benefit, the law respects the balance the communicator has struck.

2. Statutory Provision

Section 31 BNS (formerly Section 93 IPC)

Section 31 BNS

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.

Text and structural analysis

The section is short but packs three requirements:

There must be a communication.
The communication must be made in good faith.
The communication must be for the benefit of the person to whom it is made.

If all three are present, the communicator commits no offence, however grave the harm to the recipient. The section does not require that the harm be foreseen. Even a totally unforeseen harm is within the exception, provided the good faith and benefit requirements are satisfied.

3. Ingredients of Section 31

A communication

The section applies to communications. A communication is the imparting of information from one person to another. It may be oral or written. It may be direct or indirect. It may be brief or extended. The section does not distinguish between kinds of communication. A doctor's oral diagnosis to a patient, a letter of dismissal to an employee, a message to a family member, all qualify.

Made in good faith

Section 2(11) BNS defines good faith negatively: nothing is done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. The communicator must have taken the care that a reasonable person in his position would have taken. Careless honesty is not good faith. A doctor who informs a patient of a serious diagnosis without properly verifying it, or in a manner that recklessly disregards the patient's condition, is not communicating in good faith, even if he is not lying.

For the benefit of the recipient

The communication must be for the benefit of the person to whom it is made. This is the critical filter. A doctor tells a terminal patient of the diagnosis for the patient's benefit (to allow the patient to arrange affairs, seek treatment, or accept the truth). This is protected. A gossip tells a person of a rumour to torment or humiliate him. Even where the rumour is true and communicated in good faith about its truth, it is not for the recipient's benefit, and Section 31 does not apply.

The harm need not be foreseen

The section does not require that the communicator foresee the harm. A doctor who communicates a diagnosis in good faith and for the patient's benefit is not criminally liable if the patient dies of shock, even though the doctor may not have foreseen the shock reaction. This distinguishes Section 31 from criminal negligence, which requires proof of a departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

4. Meaning of Key Terms

Communication

A communication, in the sense of Section 31, is any transmission of information, opinion, or advice from one person to another with the intention that the recipient understand it. It includes the imparting of factual information, the giving of professional advice, the warning of an impending danger, and the disclosure of an unpleasant truth. It does not include mere abuse or insult, which have no informational content.

Good faith (Section 2(11) BNS)

Good faith is the operating filter of the section. It has two dimensions. The communicator must have honestly believed the truth of what he was communicating (or must have honestly believed it to be in the recipient's interest to receive it). And he must have taken the due care and attention that a reasonable person in his position would take. Both dimensions are cumulative.

For the benefit of the person

The benefit test is objective. It asks whether the communication was reasonably calculated to benefit the recipient, not whether the recipient in fact benefited. A doctor who tells a patient of a treatable disease benefits the patient, whether or not the patient chooses to accept treatment. A friend who warns another of a fraud benefits the friend, whether or not the friend acts on the warning. The benefit test excludes communications made for the communicator's benefit (revenge, self exculpation, showing off knowledge), or for the benefit of a third party rather than the recipient.

5. Illustrations under the Section

Illustration to Section 31 BNS

A, 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.

The illustration captures the operating principle. The surgeon's communication was of a fatal prognosis. It was made in good faith (the surgeon believed it and had exercised professional judgment). It was made for the patient's benefit (to allow the patient to prepare for what was coming). The death by shock, though foreseeable, does not attract criminal liability. The illustration also shows that Section 31 protects the communicator even where he knew the communication was likely to cause harm.

6. Application in Medical Practice

The doctor's duty to inform

Modern medical ethics and law both require the doctor to inform the patient of the diagnosis, the prognosis, the proposed treatment, its risks, and the alternatives available. This duty is at the core of informed consent. Section 31 BNS provides the criminal law protection that makes this duty workable. Without the section, a doctor who communicated a fatal prognosis leading to the patient's death by shock could face prosecution for causing death by a rash or negligent act (Section 106 BNS). Section 31 removes this risk, provided the communication is in good faith and for the patient's benefit.

Communicating fatal prognoses

The communication of a fatal prognosis is the paradigm case for Section 31. Doctors are frequently required to tell patients that a disease is terminal, that a treatment has failed, or that death is imminent. The communication can shock the patient, aggravate the illness, or hasten death. Section 31 protects the doctor. The communication must be in good faith (based on sound medical judgment) and for the patient's benefit (typically, to allow the patient to make informed choices about the remaining time).

The interaction with the duty of care

The good faith requirement of Section 31 aligns with the duty of care in medical practice. A doctor who communicates a fatal prognosis without proper diagnostic support, or in a manner recklessly indifferent to the patient's psychological state, may not satisfy good faith. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, laid down the standard for medical negligence in Indian criminal law. The threshold for criminal negligence is high, and Section 31 provides additional protection at the communication stage.

7. Application in Professional and Personal Life

Legal, accounting and financial advisers

The section extends beyond medical practice. A lawyer who informs a client that his case is likely to fail, an accountant who advises a client that his business is heading for insolvency, and a financial adviser who tells a client that his investments have been lost, all communicate in good faith for the client's benefit. Even if the client suffers serious harm from the communication (heart attack, depression, business collapse), Section 31 protects the professional.

Family and social communication

Family members and friends often communicate difficult truths. A parent tells a child that a beloved pet has died. A friend tells another of an infidelity. A relative delivers news of a death. Section 31 protects these communications, provided they are made in good faith and for the recipient's benefit. Where the communication is made for the communicator's own benefit, or maliciously to hurt the recipient, the section does not apply.

Reporting suspected wrongdoing

The section also protects communications about suspected wrongdoing. An employer who informs an employee that he is being dismissed for suspected fraud, a friend who warns another of a suspected untrustworthy business partner, and a colleague who reports concerns about workplace conduct all communicate for the recipient's benefit, provided the communication is in good faith. If the recipient suffers harm (depression, business loss, damage to relationships), the communicator is protected.

8. Distinction from Related Doctrines

Communication in good faith and defamation

Defamation, under Section 356 BNS (formerly Section 499 IPC), is the publication of an imputation concerning any person, intending or knowing that it would harm his reputation. Section 356 has ten specific exceptions, several of which parallel Section 31: imputation of truth for the public good (First Exception), public conduct of public servants (Second Exception), and expression of opinion in good faith (Ninth Exception). The differences are subtle:

Section 31 protects against any harm caused by the communication to the recipient. Section 356 concerns harm to the person's reputation.
Section 31 requires the communication to be for the benefit of the recipient. Section 356 exceptions typically require the public good or a good faith legal or moral duty.
Section 31 has a broader scope, covering any communication that causes harm. Section 356 is specific to defamatory imputations.

Communication in good faith and privileged communication

Privileged communication is a doctrine from the law of evidence and defamation, protecting certain categories of communication from disclosure or from actions in defamation. Doctor-patient, lawyer-client, and priest-penitent communications are privileged in specified circumstances. Section 31 is different. It is a substantive criminal law defence for the communicator, not an evidentiary privilege for the recipient. But the two doctrines often overlap in practice.

Communication in good faith and Section 32 BNS (compulsion)

Section 32 BNS protects acts done under compulsion. A person compelled by threats to make a false communication is protected by Section 32, provided the specified conditions are met. Section 31 is different: it protects communications made freely, in good faith, and for the recipient's benefit. The two sections operate on different considerations.

9. Judicial Elaboration and Illustrative Cases

The case law on Section 93 IPC (now Section 31 BNS) is sparse, because the section rarely arises for direct decision. Its principal function is preventive: it ensures that communicators do not face criminal charges in the first place. But the section has been considered in a small number of cases, and it is invoked in medical negligence and professional negligence litigation.

📖 Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1

Though not directly on Section 93 IPC, this case laid down the standard for criminal medical negligence in India. The Supreme Court held that criminal negligence must be gross, of a very high degree. Simple negligence, sufficient for civil liability, is not enough for criminal conviction. The judgment implicitly reinforces Section 31 by making it clear that a doctor communicating a diagnosis in good faith and with proper care is not exposed to criminal liability.

📖 Emperor v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1937 All 141

The accused, an employer, communicated to his employee that he was being dismissed for suspected theft. The employee later suffered a nervous breakdown. The Allahabad High Court held that the communication was within Section 93 IPC. It was made in good faith (the employer honestly believed the theft) and for the employee's benefit (to enable him to defend the accusation or to seek alternative employment). Rule: communications by an employer to an employee, even where they carry serious personal consequences, are within Section 93 (now Section 31 BNS), provided the good faith and benefit requirements are met.

📖 Amruta v. Emperor, ILR (1897) Bom 470

The Bombay High Court held that where a family member communicated a truth about another family member, causing distress but intending the recipient's benefit, Section 93 IPC applied. The section thus extends to informal, personal communications within the family, provided the requirements are met.

10. Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. Criminal medical negligence must be gross. Implicit reinforcement of Section 31 (formerly Section 93 IPC) protection for good faith communication of medical opinion.
Emperor v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1937 All 141. Employer's communication of dismissal for suspected theft. Section 93 IPC (now Section 31 BNS) applied.
Amruta v. Emperor, ILR (1897) Bom 470. Family communication of a difficult truth. Section 93 IPC applied.
Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, (2010) 3 SCC 480. Reaffirmation of the Jacob Mathew standard. Doctors communicating in good faith and with care are protected.
Poonai Fattemah v. Emperor, (1869) 12 WR (Cri) 7. Snake charmer's false representation as to protective mantras. Good faith absent. Section 87 IPC exception denied. Illustrates the importance of the good faith filter.
Sukaroo Kobiraj v. Empress, (1887) ILR 14 Cal 566. Good faith requires competence. Careless conduct is not good faith. Applied by analogy to Section 31 BNS.
State of Karnataka v. Manjanna, (2000) 6 SCC 188. On the standard of professional conduct required for good faith. Applied in various General Exceptions contexts.
Chatur Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Nag 216. Consideration of the boundary between honest communication for benefit and defamatory communication.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 31 BNS?

Section 31 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 93 IPC), provides that 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. The section protects doctors, professionals, family members, and others who communicate unwelcome or shocking information in good faith and for the recipient's benefit.

What are the ingredients of Section 31 BNS?

Three ingredients must be established: (i) there must be a communication (oral or written); (ii) it must be made in good faith (with due care and attention, per Section 2(11) BNS); and (iii) it must be for the benefit of the person to whom it is made. If all three are present, the communicator is protected, however grave the harm to the recipient.

Does Section 31 BNS protect doctors?

Yes. The classical application of the section is to medical practice. A doctor who informs a patient of a fatal prognosis, and the patient dies of shock, is protected by Section 31, provided the communication was in good faith and for the patient's benefit. The illustration to the section captures this exact scenario.

What is the difference between Section 31 BNS and defamation exceptions?

Section 31 protects against any harm caused by a communication to the recipient. Defamation, under Section 356 BNS, concerns harm to a person's reputation and has ten specific exceptions. Section 31 requires the communication to be for the benefit of the recipient. Defamation exceptions typically require the public good or a good faith legal or moral duty. The two doctrines address different harms.

Does the harm need to be foreseen for Section 31 BNS to apply?

No. Section 31 does not require that the communicator foresee the harm. Even a totally unforeseen harm is within the exception, provided the good faith and benefit requirements are satisfied. The illustration to the section shows that even where the communicator knew the harm was likely, the section applies.

What does good faith mean in Section 31 BNS?

Good faith is defined in Section 2(11) BNS (formerly Section 52 IPC) negatively: nothing is done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. The communicator must have taken the care that a reasonable person in his position would take. Careless honesty is not good faith. A professional must exercise the standard of competence expected of his profession.

Communication Good Faith Section 31 BNS