Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Chapter III: General Exceptions
Section 30: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent
In plain words
An act done in good faith for someone's benefit is not an offence even without their consent, if they cannot give consent and there is no guardian who can be asked in time.
- It never covers intentionally causing or attempting to cause death.
- It does not cover knowingly risking death, except to prevent death or grievous hurt or to cure a serious disease or infirmity.
- It does not cover causing hurt, except to prevent death or hurt.
- Money benefit alone is not "benefit" for sections 26, 27 and this section.
Example: A child is badly injured and needs an immediate operation, and there is no time to reach the guardian. A surgeon who operates in good faith commits no offence, even if the child objects.
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 that this exception shall not extend to—
(a) the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;
(b) 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;
(c) the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;
(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.
Illustrations
(1) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned.
A, not intending Zs death, but in good faith, for Z's benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.
(2) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.
(3) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. A has committed no offence.
(4) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.
Explanation.—-Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 26, 27 and this section.
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 (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 25 August 2026. 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. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 30 carries forward section 92 of the IPC: acts done in good faith for a person's benefit without consent, where consent cannot be given in time and no guardian is available, as in emergency treatment of an unconscious person.
Key points
- Impossibility of getting consent in time is essential.
- The provisos exclude intentional killing and limit acts likely to cause death or hurt.
- Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit.
- Withdrawal of life support in permanent vegetative state, with safeguards, falls within this protection (Common Cause, 2018).
Key Supreme Court rulings
Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 INSC 223
Decided under section 92 of the IPC. Withdrawing life support from a person in a permanently vegetative state is not intentional causing of death and is protected; passive euthanasia was recognised with safeguards.
Common mistakes
- Relying on the section where consent could have been obtained.
Read with: Section 26 BNS, Section 92 IPC
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 30
No Supreme Court judgment in our database cites this section yet.