
On January 09 the Supreme Court Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. The State of Kerala & Anr case observed that actions taken for self-defence must be strictly preventive and aimed at averting the danger rather than being punitive or retributive
“In the case of private defence, the actions taken must be strictly preventive, aimed at averting the danger, rather than punitive or retributive. The continued assault after the initial injury demonstrates a disproportionate use of force, which is inconsistent with the principle of self-defence. Even if we were to assume that the initial actions were taken in self-defence, although it is not the case, the subsequent assault reveals a shift in the accused’s intention from protecting himself & his property to inflicting harm and wrecking vengeance upon the deceased,” the apex Court ruled upholding the conviction of the appellant, on the ground that his actions exceeded the boundaries of self-defence and showed aggression.
The Court reiterated that causing death can only be justified when the accused is faced with a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The impending danger must be present, real or apparent, the Court ruled observed while stressing the fact that the force used in self-defence must be proportionate to the threat faced and should not continue once the danger has subsided.
In particular, the justices noted that if the assault continues after the initial injury, it suggests a shift in the intention from self-protection to a desire for retaliation or vengeance. Such continued assault, therefore, reflects a disproportionate use of force, which is inconsistent with the principle of self-defence under the law.
This ruling reinforces the notion that self-defence is meant to prevent harm, not to punish or seek revenge after the immediate threat is over.
The Court further emphasised that even if the initial act of self-defence was justified, continuing the assault after the initial injury suggests a shift in intention from protecting oneself to inflicting harm or seeking revenge.
The right to self-defence is not a blanket justification for violent retribution and must be confined to a reasonable and proportionate response to an ongoing threat, the apex Court ruled.
This makes it as a landmark judgement in the sense that it attempts to define the limits and principles of self-defence under Indian law. The deceased was stabbed by the appellant during a land dispute, claiming self-defence. Trial and High Courts convicted him of murder. The Supreme Court observed the force used was not appropriate and beyond preventive self-defence.

The Supreme Court in its judgement made it clear that:
- Self-defence means protecting oneself or one’s property from harm
- The actions taken should be strictly preventive
- It should not be for inflicting harm to another person once the immediate threat has subsided
- The primary goal should be to avert the imminent danger, not to punish or retaliate.
- The actions should not be motivated – for revenge or punishment
- Continued violence or assault after the initial injury means disproportionate use of force
The apex court thus underscored the principle of proportionality in self-defence and opined that once the immediate threat has been neutralized, any further use of force cannot be justified and is excessive and unreasonable.
The Court observed that, even if the initial actions were in self-defence, the subsequent assault revealed a shift in the intention of the accused. The Court noted that the aggressor’s behaviour transitioned from protecting themselves to inflicting harm or seeking vengeance. Once this shift occurs, the accused can no longer claim the protection of the right to self-defence.
Self-defence can only be justified if the intentions of the defender are to protect themselves from immediate harm, and not to retaliate after the danger has passed.
The judgement made it clear that self-defence is not a license for revenge and should not be used as an excuse to harm someone after the immediate threat has been neutralized as disproportionate or punitive actions are not justified under the right to private defence.
Another crucial area that the judgement touched upon was the principle of proportionality. In other words, the use of force in self-defence must be proportional to the threat faced. This means that the defender must stop using force, once the threat ends. According to the Supreme Court order even if the initial threat was severe the proportionality principle should be used to determine whether an act of defence was legitimate.
Finally the Supreme Court bench made it clear that self-defence should be preventive not punitive. In other words the intention behind the use of force always should be to stop the aggression, not for revenge or punishment.
Right to private defence
Significantly the right to private defence (also known as the right to self-defence) is the legal right of an individual to protect oneself, others, or property from imminent harm or danger. It is a fundamental concept within both criminal law and human rights law in various legal systems and international conventions and serves as a safeguard against unlawful violence and invasion of privacy. It is considered an inherent human right in many legal systems like the Roman law, and is included in the philosophical writings of thinkers like Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. However it does not justify excessive or unlawful use of force or violence. The right to self-defence ceases to exist, once the immediate danger is over, and any further actions become an unlawful assault and a tool for vengeance.
The right to private defence is recognized in various legal systems worldwide, although the specific conditions and limitations many vary from country to country.
Key principles of the right to private defence include:
- The threat or harm must be immediate. The right to private defence is only permissible if the danger is real and present, and not based on past or future threats.
- The force used in defence must be proportionate to the threat faced. Excessive or disproportionate force may lead to criminal liability. For example, using deadly force to defend against a minor threat might not be justified.
- The response to the threat should be reasonable, meaning the defender’s actions should be to protect himself or others from harm. Overreacting to a situation can lead to legal consequences.
- The right to private defence can extend to defending other individuals who are under threat of harm, not just oneself.
- In some legal systems, individuals can use force to defend their property from unlawful intrusion or damage, but the force used must be reasonable and proportional to the threat.
- In some jurisdictions, there is no obligation to retreat from a threatening situation before using force in self-defence (this is sometimes referred to as the “Stand Your Ground” principle).
- The right to private defence becomes applicable if the threat comes from unlawful aggression, meaning the attacker must be the aggressor.
- The defence must be in response to an immediate threat, not as a pre-emptive strike or retaliation for past wrongs
The right to private defence aims to balance the protection of individuals and property with the need to prevent unlawful use of force. It ensures that individuals can protect themselves, but it also ensures that this right is not abused to justify violence.
(To be continued…)
[…] Also Read: Right to Self-Defence does not mean right to kill: Supreme Court […]