
Imagine you’re walking home late at night when suddenly, someone lunges at you with a knife. Your instincts kick in, and you push them away to protect yourself. But how far can you go in self-defence before it becomes a crime? The law recognizes the right to private defence, but it also sets strict boundaries to prevent its misuse.
What Is the Right to Defence?
The right to private defence, commonly known as self-defence, is a legal provision that allows individuals to protect themselves, others, and their property from harm, but it comes with clear boundaries.
Sections 96 and 97 of the IPC establish that any act done in the exercise of the right to private defence is not an offence. Every individual has the right to protect themselves, others, and their property from unlawful harm, including threats like theft, robbery, or trespassing. In simple terms, a person cannot be held legally responsible for any harm caused while defending their own life or property, or that of another, as long as their actions remain within legal boundaries.
Also read: From Michael Jackson to Amitabh Bachchan: Famous Personalities Who Have Battled Vitiligo
Furthermore, Indian and Common law do not require the person exercising private defence to have any relationship with the individual they are protecting.
When Can You Use This Right?
Self-defence is not a free pass to use force at will. It is only valid when there is an immediate and unlawful threat. The law provides clear guidelines:
- Imminent Threat: The danger must be real and immediate. A past argument or a future possibility does not justify violence. For example, if someone attacks you with a weapon, you can defend yourself. But if someone merely insulted you last week, attacking them today is not self-defence.
- Proportional Force: Your response must match the level of threat. If someone slaps you, retaliating with a deadly weapon is excessive and unlawful.
- Reasonable Belief of Danger: If you genuinely believe your life is at risk, you can act in self-defence. However, this belief must be based on facts, not mere assumptions.
- Against Unlawful Aggression: You can defend yourself only if the other person is the aggressor. If you started the fight, you cannot claim self-defence.
- Protection of Others and Property: You can also act to protect someone else in immediate danger. Similarly, force can be used to safeguard property, but lethal force is only justified if life is also at risk.
When Does the Right to Defence End?
The right to self-defence exists only as long as the threat exists. Once the danger has passed, any further use of force is illegal. Here’s when this right ceases:
- When the Threat Ends: If the attacker stops or runs away, you must stop too. Continuing to harm them could make you the aggressor.
- If Force Becomes Excessive: Even in a life-threatening situation, your response should not exceed what is necessary to neutralize the threat.
- No Pre-emptive Strikes or Retaliation: You cannot attack someone in anticipation of a possible threat, nor can you take revenge for a past attack.
Also read: India’s Crypto Inaction Raises Questions One Year After G20 Presidency
What Has the Supreme Court Said?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that self-defence is meant for protection, not excessive violence or revenge and it has clarified the limits of self-defence in various landmark cases:
- K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962): Commander K.M. Nanavati, a naval officer, shot businessman Prem Ahuja, who was having an affair with Nanavati’s wife. The Court ruled that self-defence must be immediate and proportional. Since Nanavati had time to contemplate and retrieve his weapon, the act was considered premeditated revenge rather than an act of self-defence.
- State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006): This case reinforced the principle that self-defence is only justified while the threat is ongoing. The Supreme Court ruled that once the aggressor retreats or ceases their attack, any further use of force is no longer self-defence but an act of aggression.
- Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab (1978): A factory owner, Mohinder Pal Jolly, shot a protesting worker demanding wages. The Court held that while property can be defended, lethal force is not justified unless there is a direct threat to life. Since the protest did not pose an immediate life-threatening danger, the act was considered excessive.
- Kishore Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017): The accused in this case claimed he acted in self-defence. However, the Court found that there was no real or immediate threat. The ruling reinforced that self-defence must be based on an immediate danger, not on hypothetical or exaggerated fears.
- Sunder Singh v. State of Punjab (1982): The Supreme Court emphasized that self-defence applies only to immediate attacks. In this case, the accused had attacked someone based on an anticipated threat, which was deemed unlawful. The ruling clarified that pre-emptive strikes or acts of vengeance do not fall under the right to private defence.