The right of self-defence is a fundamental principle of natural law, to ensure that an individual has the right to protect himself and his near and dear ones from unlawful aggression. It is not merely a privilege but a necessity, allowing a person to preserve their life, liberty, and property when threatened.
The right to private defence also known as the right to self-defence is explicitly covered under Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and codified in most common law jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, provided the criteria for justifiable defence are met. However the right to private defence is not an absolute right and is subject to several conditions that must be met to justify its exercise. These conditions include the use of force proportional to the threat faced.
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation plays a crucial role in defining the scope and limitations of the right to private defence. Courts often evaluate the facts of an individual case to determine whether the conditions for self-defence have been met. For example, in cases where an individual claims to have acted in self-defence, courts will examine whether the force used was proportional, necessary, and reasonable. In some jurisdictions, there is a “duty to retreat,” meaning that individuals are required to escape the danger before resorting to force in self-defence, while in other jurisdictions, individuals can “stand their ground” when faced with an imminent threat.
The use of excessive force, beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect oneself or others, may lead to criminal liability. This includes situations where an individual continues to use force after the threat has been neutralized. The right to private defence also does not allow pre-emptive strikes or retaliation against past wrongs. Defence must be in response to an immediate and unlawful threat. In many jurisdictions, the use of deadly force in self-defence is only justified when the individual reasonably believes that their life was in danger or they were facing serious bodily harm.
Conditions when the right to self-defence ceases to exist
The right to private defence is not an absolute right. It is subject to several limitations designed to ensure that individuals do not abuse the right to defend themselves, others, or their property. These conditions include:
Private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) applies only when there occurs a real, immediate danger of death or grievous hurt. Actions exceeding necessary force or showing aggression nullifies the claim of private defence.
The right to private defence applies only when an imminent threat or unlawful aggression is present. The aggressor’s actions must pose an immediate danger of harm. For instance, an individual may not invoke the right to private defence if the threat is speculative, such as a threat made in the past or a future threat that is not accompanied by an immediate risk. For example, if someone is being attacked with a knife, the person under threat is legally permitted to use reasonable force to defend themselves against the attack. However, if the threat is verbal abuse made in the past, it does not justify a defensive response.
Also Read: Right to Self-Defence does not mean right to kill: Supreme Court
The force used in self-defence must be proportionate to the threat faced. This means that the individual exercising the right to private defence must not use excessive or unnecessary force in response to the danger. The principle of proportionality ensures that the force used is in line with the level of threat presented by the aggressor. For instance, if someone threatens another person with physical harm, the use of deadly force such as shooting the aggressor may not be justified unless the aggressor is also armed or poses a significant risk to the defender. Conversely, if the aggressor is only attempting a non-lethal form of attack, such as pushing or slapping, then the response should similarly be non-lethal or reasonable in nature.
The right to private defence is based on the reasonable belief that the individual is under threat and that immediate defensive action is necessary. This includes not only actual threats but also perceived threats that might reasonably cause the person to fear harm. For example, if a person believes that someone is likely to attack is in a dark alley, the individual may be justified in defending himself, even if the threat was not real. However, if the belief is unreasonable (e.g., they attacked someone who was simply passing by), the use of force may be deemed unlawful.
The right to private defence can only be exercised in response to unlawful aggression. This implies that the aggressor must be the one engaging in an unlawful act, such as a physical attack or an unlawful entry into the defender’s property. If the person exercising self-defence initiates the attack or aggression, then it would not be considered legitimate self-defence. For instance, if someone is provoked into a fight by another person, but the provocation does not amount to unlawful aggression such as insults or verbal threats, the use of force in response may not be considered self-defence.
Also Read: Hoax of martial arts and self-defence
The primary use of the right to private defence is to protect oneself from harm. If an individual faces an immediate threat of bodily harm or death, they have the right to defend themselves using reasonable force. The nature of self-defence can range from simple physical deterrence to the use of lethal force, depending on the severity of the threat.
In many jurisdictions, self-defence is recognized as a valid justification for causing harm to another person during an attack. However, the right to self-defence is restricted by the requirement of proportionality and necessity. For example, if an individual is being punched by another, they may defend themselves by pushing the attacker away or using equal force to stop the aggression, but they cannot respond with lethal force unless the circumstances justify such a response.
The right to private defence extends to the defence of others who are under threat of harm. An individual who witnesses an unlawful aggression is entitled to intervene to protect the victim from harm. For instance, if an individual sees another person being attacked, they may use reasonable force to protect the victim. This right can be extended to situations where the victim is unable to defend themselves due to age, physical condition, or other factors.
In some legal systems, individuals are permitted to use force to prevent unlawful destruction, theft, or trespassing of their property. For example, if someone tries to break into a home, the property owner may use force to stop the intrusion. However, lethal force is justified only if the person is also faced with a risk of and physical safety. In many jurisdictions, the use of deadly force solely to protect property is prohibited unless the individual’s life is also in danger.
Landmark supreme court judgements on the Right to Private Defence
The Supreme Court of India, has handed down several landmark judgments on the scope, conditions, and limitations of the Right to Private Defence. These rulings have shaped the interpretation and application of the right to private defence within the Indian legal system. Here are some landmark Supreme Court judgments related to the right to private defence:
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
This was one of the most famous cases concerning the right to private defence in India. The case involved the killing of a man named Ahuja by Commander K.M. Nanavati. Nanavati’s wife had an affair with Ahuja. After finding out, Nanavati confronted Ahuja. During the confrontation, Nanavati shot and killed Ahuja. Nanavati claimed that he was acting in self-defence and that the killing was a result of his anger and emotional distress.
The Supreme Court held that the right to private defence extends to defending one’s honour and dignity. However, the Court also highlighted the necessity of a proportional response. The judgment created a distinction between premeditated acts of murder and acts committed in the heat of passion under the guise of self-defence. The Court reduced the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, suggesting that the killing was not premeditated but occurred due to an emotional outburst. This case played a significant part in understanding the emotional context within which the right to private defence is invoked. It demonstrated that private defence could be extended to protecting personal dignity, especially in cases of infidelity, but with limits on proportionality.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
In this case, the accused was involved in an altercation that escalated into a violent confrontation. The accused killed a person in response to being attacked. The defence argued that the accused was exercising his right to private defence.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to private defence allows an individual to use force when confronted with an imminent threat of harm, but it should not be excessive in relation to the threat. The Court emphasized that proportionality is a key element in determining whether the force used was justified. The judgment reinforced the principle that once the aggressor retreats or ceases to pose a threat, the defender must stop using force. This case reinforced the doctrine of proportionality, emphasizing that the force used in private defence must match the severity of the threat faced by the defender.
Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State Of Punjab (1978)
Mohinder Pal Jolly, the proprietor of a factory in Jullundur, was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the death of an employee, Sant Ram in a dispute regarding unpaid wages during a period of lay-off. The workers were dissatisfied with the settlement and were demanding to be paid leading to a confrontation in which Jolly opened fire resulting in Sant Ram’s death.
This case critically examines the boundaries of the right to private defence, especially concerning the use of lethal force in the protection of property and person. The Supreme Court held that while Jolly had the right to defend his property against mischief (throwing of brick-bats and causing damage), this right did not extend to causing death. Therefore, his actions were deemed unlawful, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II. This landmark judgment thus contributes significantly to the jurisprudence surrounding self-defence, guiding both legal practitioners and individuals in understanding the delicate balance between protection and perpetration in the realm of private defence.
Kishore Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)
In this case, the accused was involved in an altercation with the victim. He claimed that the victim was about to attack him, prompting the use of deadly force in self-defence.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence to determine whether the accused’s response was justified under the right to private defence. It emphasized that the imminence and nature of the threat are essential in assessing whether the force used was appropriate. The Court found that while the accused had faced a threat, the use of deadly force was not justified as the threat did not rise to the level of life-threatening danger. The judgment reinforced the principle that self-defence is not a blanket justification for violence, and each case must be examined in light of the specific facts, including whether the threat was immediate and whether the force used was proportional.
Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan (1984)
Bhagirath was charged with the killing of a person during a violent conflict. Bhagirath argued that he acted in self-defence after being attacked by the deceased.
The Supreme Court held that an individual who uses force in private defence need not wait for the aggressor to actually inflict harm; they can defend themselves if they reasonably believe that harm is imminent. The Court stated that the accused had acted reasonably and within the boundaries of self-defence. The Court also stressed that the right to private defence is not confined to life-threatening situations alone, but also extends to situations where there is a threat of bodily harm. The judgment further clarified the principle that private defence can be invoked even in situations of perceived danger and that the response must be based on reasonable belief of imminent harm.
Sunder Singh v. State of Punjab (1982)
The case involved a confrontation between two parties, where the accused used force in self-defence after the other party initiated a violent attack. The accused claimed that he was protecting his life from imminent harm.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to private defence exists as long as the individual is facing an immediate and unlawful threat of harm. However, the right does not extend to pre-emptive strikes or acts of vengeance. The Court also emphasized that excessive force could not be justified, even if an individual’s life was in danger. The judgment reinforced the idea that excessive force or a disproportionate response to a threat could render the claim of self-defence invalid. It further clarified that retaliation is not a valid justification for invoking private defence.
Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015)
The accused, Vijay Kumar, killed the victim in a scuffle and claimed he was acting in self-defence. The incident was a result of an ongoing dispute between the two parties.
The Supreme Court found that the right to private defence had been misused in this case. It ruled that although the accused had a right to defend himself, he used disproportionate force relative to the threat posed by the victim. The Court reiterated that the proportionality principle applies strictly in cases of self-defence. The Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the critical role of proportionality and necessity in applying the right to private defence. Even in cases where self-defence is invoked, the force used must not exceed what is required to neutralize the threat.
Conclusion
The right to private defence is a vital legal right that balances the need for self-protection with the responsibility to avoid excessive violence. Through these landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has established several important principles that govern the right to private defence in India:
- The threat must be imminent, and the response must be proportional to the danger.
- Excessive use of force is not justified, and once the threat has passed, the right to private defence ceases.
- The reasonableness of the belief in the need for defence is crucial.
- Self-defence can extend to protecting others and property, but within reasonable limits.
These cases underscore the importance of maintaining a balance between personal safety and the protection of human rights, ensuring that individuals do not misuse the right to private defence to justify unlawful or excessive violence.
