Section 93 IPC: Communication Made in Good Faith
Section 93 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provided a general exception for a communication made in good faith for the benefit of the person to whom it was made, even where the communication caused harm to that person.
Text and Meaning of Section 93 IPC
Section 93 - Communication made in good faith.
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 provision protected the making of a communication where two central requirements were satisfied: the communication had to be made in good faith, and it had to be made for the benefit of the person receiving it. The fact that the communication itself caused harm did not, by reason of that harm alone, make the communication an offence when these requirements were fulfilled.
Essential Requirements of Section 93
- There must be a communication: the provision concerns harm resulting from information, advice, an opinion or another communication made to a person.
- The communication must be made in good faith: good faith is an essential statutory condition and cannot be replaced merely by an assertion of benevolent intention.
- It must be for the recipient's benefit: the statutory protection is tied to the benefit of the person to whom the communication is made.
- Harm may nevertheless result: Section 93 specifically addresses the situation where the communication causes harm to its recipient.
Meaning of Good Faith Under the IPC
For the IPC-era provision, "good faith" should be understood with the Code's general definition. Under Section 52 IPC, nothing was said to be done or believed in good faith if it was done or believed without due care and attention. Accordingly, the Section 93 exception required more than subjective honesty; the statutory standard of due care and attention remained relevant.
Statutory Illustration
Surgeon communicating a serious medical opinion: A, a surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that the patient cannot live. The patient dies as a consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, even though A knew that the communication might be likely to cause the patient's death.
The illustration demonstrates the purpose of Section 93. A grave communication may foreseeably cause distress or even serious physical consequences, but where the communication is made in good faith for the person's benefit, the harm resulting from the communication does not by itself make it an offence under the rule stated in Section 93.
Scope of the Protection
Section 93 did not create a general immunity for every harmful statement. Its protection depended on the statutory elements of good faith and benefit. Whether those requirements were satisfied would therefore depend on the circumstances in which the communication was made.
Relationship with the General Exceptions
Section 93 appeared in Chapter IV of the IPC dealing with General Exceptions. Nearby provisions addressed consent, acts done for a person's benefit, acts compelled by threats, slight harm and private defence. Section 93 specifically dealt with harm arising from a beneficial communication made in good faith.
Summary
Section 93 IPC protected a communication from criminal liability by reason of harm caused to its recipient when the communication was made in good faith and for that person's benefit. The statutory surgeon-patient illustration shows that even a communication known to carry a serious risk of shock could fall within the exception when its legal requirements were satisfied.