Section 16 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Act done pursuant to Judgment of Court
IMPORTANT LINKS
According to Section 16 BNS, an act performed in reliance on a court's existing judgment or order is not an offence, even if the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction. The primary condition for this protection is that the person carrying out the act must have done so in good faith, and with belief, that the court had the legal authority to make the ruling. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.
Section 16 BNS: Act done pursuant to Judgment of Court
Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Note: “The information provided on Section 16 BNS above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”
Download Free PDF on Section 16 BNS 2023 PDF
| Subjects | PDF Link |
|---|---|
| Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts | Download Link |
| Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants | Download Link |
| Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF | Download Link |
| Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors | Download Link |
Section 16 BNS: Simplified Interpretation
Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) stipulates that an act undertaken pursuant to or warranted by a judgment or order of a court shall not constitute an offence, notwithstanding a subsequent determination that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue such judgment or order. This provision extends protection to people who take actions based on judicial decisions. The underlying condition for this defence under Section 16 BNS is that the person performing the act must have done so in good faith, with a genuine belief in the court's jurisdiction that gave the said judgment or order.
Section 16 BNS: Essential Elements
To be protected under Section 16 BNS, a person must have acted because of a court’s Judgment or order, and they must have honestly believed the court had the jurisdiction to give such order or decision, even if it later turns out the court didn't have such jurisdiction.
-
An Act Done:
For a defence to be constituted under section 16 BNS person must undertake a specific action or conduct
-
Pursuant to or Warranted by a Court's Judgment or Order:
The act must be a direct consequence of, or authorized by, a valid judgment or order issued by a court. This implies a clear link between the court's directive and the action taken.
-
Judgment or Order Remains in Force:
The protection applies only if the court's judgment or order was still legally valid and had not been overturned, stayed, or cancelled at the time the act was committed.
-
Notwithstanding Lack of Jurisdiction:
Even if it is later established that the court did not have the legal authority (jurisdiction) to pass the judgment or order, the protection under Section 16 BNS can still be claimed.
-
Good Faith Belief in Jurisdiction:
The person performing the act must have done so in good faith, genuinely believing that the court had the necessary jurisdiction to issue the judgment or order. Lack of awareness of the jurisdictional defect and an honest reliance on the court's authority are the main component for defence under Section 16 BNS.
- 6 Full Test
Section 16 BNS: Judicial Interpretation
While not always explicitly citing Section 78 IPC now Section 16 BNS, numerous cases involving police officers or other court officials executing warrants or orders describe the principle of this section. Mentioned below are some of the landmark judgments on Section 16 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita:
- Kapur Chand vs. State (1976): In this case, the accused husband withdrew his wife's property based on a magistrate's order. The court held that the husband was protected under Section 78 IPC now Section 16 BNS as he acted in pursuance of a court order. This highlights the protection offered to those acting directly on a judicial decision.
- Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs. Sri Sadhu Narayana Others (2010) (Andhra Pradesh High Court): This case explicitly mentions Section 78 Indian Penal Code now Section 16 of BNS, stating that it protects acts done pursuant to any judgment or order of a court. While the primary focus might have been on other aspects, the court acknowledged the shield provided by Section 16 BNS for actions based on a court's judgment or order.
Section 16 BNS and Section 78 IPC Comparison
The following are the difference between Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
|
Provision Element |
Section 16 BNS |
Section 78 IPC |
|
Main definition |
Nothing which is done in pursuance of……act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction. |
Same as Section 16 BNS |
Conclusion
Section 16 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita recognizes the practical need for both citizens and public officials to rely on the authority of court orders and judgments that are in effect. Section 16 of BNS offers defence even in situations where a Court may not have had jurisdiction. However, this defence is not absolute as it relies on the principle of good faith, and those relying on a court's decision must honestly believe that the court had the power to issue it at the time. The requirement under Section 16 BNS prevents misuse by those who act with knowledge of the court’s lack of jurisdiction or with a dishonest intention.
Section 16 BNS: FAQs
What is the main purpose of Section 16 BNS?
Section 16 of BNS aims to protect individuals from criminal liability for actions they take in compliance with a court's judgment or order that is currently in effect, even if it later turns out the court lacked the jurisdiction to issue that order.
Who does Section 16 BNS protect?
It protects any person who performs an act pursuant to or warranted by a court's judgment or order. This could include individuals, officials, or any entity directed by the court.
What is the significance of the phrase "judgment or order remains in force" in Section 16 of BNS?
This means the protection applies only while the court's decision is legally valid and has not been stayed, overturned, or cancelled at the time the act is carried out.
Does Section 16 BNS offer protection if the court clearly had no jurisdiction?
Yes, the section specifically states "notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction." The lack of jurisdiction in itself doesn't negate the protection.
What is the crucial requirement of "good faith" under Section 16 of BNS?
The person performing the act must have genuinely believed that the court had the legal authority (jurisdiction) to issue the judgment or order. This belief must be honest and without any malicious intent or knowledge of the jurisdictional defect.
If someone knows the court lacks jurisdiction but still follows the order, are they protected by Section 16 BNS?
No. The requirement of "good faith belief" is essential. If the person is aware of the court's lack of jurisdiction, the protection under this section would likely not apply.
Does Section 16 of BNS cover actions taken based on an invalid or illegal court order?
The section refers to a judgment or order that appears valid and is in force at the time of the act. If the order is patently illegal or void on its face, the protection might be questionable, especially if the person acting should have reasonably known its invalidity. The "good faith" element would be critical here.