VoxJuris
Home › Acts › IPC › Chapter IV › Section 92

Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter IV: General Exceptions

Section 92: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.

Now in the BNS section 30 (Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent)

In plain words

An act done in good faith for a person's benefit, even without their consent, is not an offence because of harm it causes, if they cannot signify consent, or are incapable of consenting and have no guardian or carer who can be asked in time.

  • This does not cover intentionally causing or attempting to cause death.
  • It does not cover acts known likely to cause death, except to prevent death or grievous hurt or cure a grievous disease or infirmity.
  • It does not cover voluntarily causing hurt except to prevent death or hurt, or abetting an offence it would not cover.
  • Mere financial benefit is not "benefit" for sections 88, 89 and 92.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provided— Provisos. First.—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death; Secondly.—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Thirdly.—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt; Fourthly.—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations

Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88, 89 and 92.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 92 protects acts done in good faith for a person's benefit without their consent, where they cannot signify consent, or are incapable of it and have no guardian from whom consent can be obtained in time. It covers emergencies such as operating on an unconscious accident victim.

The provisos

  • It never covers intentionally causing death or attempting it.
  • It does not cover acts known to be likely to cause death, except to prevent death or grievous hurt or cure a grievous disease.
  • It does not cover voluntarily causing hurt except to prevent death or hurt.
  • It does not extend to abetment of an offence the doer could not commit.

Explanation: pecuniary benefit

Mere pecuniary benefit is not 'benefit' for sections 88, 89 and 92. The act must benefit the person's life, health or wellbeing.

Passive euthanasia

In Common Cause (2018) the Court held that withdrawing life support from a patient in a permanent vegetative state or terminal illness, done for their benefit, is not intentionally causing death and is protected by section 92, subject to the safeguards the Court laid down.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 INSC 223

    Withdrawing life support from a person in a permanently vegetative state or terminal illness is not prohibited by law and does not fall outside section 92, because there is no intentional causing of death. The Court recognised passive euthanasia and advance directives with procedural safeguards.

  • Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda 2008 INSC 56

    Treatment without the patient's consent is justified only where it is necessary to save life or preserve health; a non-urgent radical surgery while the patient was under anaesthesia for diagnosis was not.

Common mistakes

  • Using section 92 where the patient could have been asked; the impossibility of obtaining consent in time is essential.
  • Reading Common Cause as permitting active euthanasia; it did not.

Read with: Section 88 IPC, Section 89 IPC, Section 30 BNS

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 92