Section 27 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides a special General Exception for acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age or a person of unsound mind, where the act is done by, or with the consent of, the guardian or another person having lawful charge of that person.
The basic idea is that a child below twelve years or a person of unsound mind may not be capable of making an informed decision about certain beneficial acts. Therefore, the law permits a guardian or another person having lawful charge to authorise or undertake certain acts for that person’s benefit.
However, Section 27 is not an unlimited protection. The proviso contains important restrictions concerning death, grievous hurt, and abetment of offences. These limitations are extremely important for understanding the section correctly.
1. Meaning and Object of Section 27 BNS
The Bare Act begins:
“Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind…”
This establishes the basic purpose of the provision.
Section 27 protects an act when it is performed in good faith and for the benefit of a child under twelve years of age or a person of unsound mind, subject to the limitations expressly provided in the section.
The provision further states that the act may be done:
“by, or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person”
Thus, the section recognises situations where the act is performed directly by the guardian or where another person performs the act with the guardian’s or lawful custodian’s consent.
The protection extends to harm which the act:
“may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause”
to the child or person of unsound mind.
This is an important feature because, unlike Section 25, Section 27 does not simply require the absence of knowledge of possible harm. A person may know that the act is likely to cause harm and still potentially receive protection, provided the requirements of Section 27 are satisfied.
However, the proviso places strict restrictions on particularly serious forms of harm.
The main objective of Section 27 is therefore to recognise beneficial acts performed on behalf of persons who may not be capable of providing legally effective consent themselves, while simultaneously preventing the provision from being abused to justify serious criminal conduct.
2. Act Done for the Benefit of Child or Person of Unsound Mind
The first substantive requirement is that the act must be done:
“for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind”
The word “benefit” is central to Section 27.
The act must be intended to benefit the very person who suffers the harm.
For example, suppose a child is suffering from a serious medical condition and a medical procedure is necessary to treat that condition. If the procedure causes some harm but is performed genuinely for the child’s treatment, Section 27 may become relevant.
The same principle applies to a person of unsound mind.
The provision recognises that certain beneficial decisions may have to be made by a guardian or lawful custodian where the person concerned cannot adequately make the decision themselves.
Benefit Must Be Genuine
The protection cannot be claimed merely by describing an act as beneficial.
The circumstances must show that the act was genuinely undertaken for the welfare, treatment, protection or other legitimate benefit of the child or person of unsound mind.
An act performed for the personal advantage of the guardian or another person cannot automatically be treated as an act done for the benefit of the protected person.
Therefore, when applying Section 27, the question is not simply:
“Was there consent from the guardian?”
The more important question is:
“Was the act genuinely done in good faith for the benefit of the child or person of unsound mind?”
3. Meaning of “Child” Under Section 27
Section 27 specifically uses the expression:
“a person under twelve years of age”
Therefore, for the purpose of this provision, the relevant age threshold is twelve years.
This is important because Section 27 does not simply refer to every minor.
The provision specifically protects a person under twelve years of age.
Therefore, the age requirement must be carefully considered when applying the section.
For example, if a person is below twelve years of age, the child-related part of Section 27 may apply, subject to all the other statutory requirements.
If the person has already attained twelve years, the specific protection relating to a “person under twelve years of age” cannot simply be assumed to apply.
This makes the age distinction important for examination questions and problem-based questions.
Section 27 Is Different from Section 25
This age requirement also helps distinguish Section 27 from Section 25.
Section 25 specifically refers to a person:
“above eighteen years of age”
whereas Section 27 deals with:
“a person under twelve years of age”
and also separately covers a person of unsound mind.
Thus, the two provisions address fundamentally different situations concerning consent.
4. Person of Unsound Mind Under Section 27
Section 27 also protects acts done for the benefit of a:
“person of unsound mind”
The purpose is to address situations where the person’s mental condition may prevent them from exercising the type of independent decision-making contemplated by ordinary consent provisions.
The focus under Section 27 is not merely on whether the person has a particular medical diagnosis. The relevant question is whether the person falls within the legal concept contemplated by the provision and therefore requires the involvement of a guardian or another person having lawful charge.
The guardian or lawful custodian can therefore play an important role in authorising beneficial acts.
For example, a person of unsound mind may require medical treatment but may be unable to provide meaningful consent to the treatment. A lawful guardian may consent to the treatment on that person’s behalf.
However, the guardian’s consent does not remove all restrictions. The act must still satisfy the requirements of good faith and benefit, and the serious limitations contained in the proviso must also be respected.
5. Act Done in Good Faith
Section 27 expressly requires the act to be done:
“in good faith”
This is one of the fundamental conditions of the exception.
Good faith means that the person performing the act must genuinely be acting for the benefit of the child or person of unsound mind.
For example, if a doctor performs a necessary operation on a child because the operation is intended to cure a serious condition, the purpose may satisfy the requirement of good faith.
On the other hand, if a person deliberately harms a child for an improper purpose and merely claims that the act was beneficial, Section 27 cannot automatically protect that conduct.
Good Faith Must Be Connected With Benefit
The words “in good faith” should not be considered separately from:
“for the benefit”
The two requirements work together.
The person must genuinely believe or act with the purpose that the act will benefit the protected person.
Therefore:
Good faith + genuine benefit = central foundation of Section 27.
6. Act Done By or With the Consent of Guardian
Section 27 recognises two situations.
The Bare Act states:
“by, or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person”
This means the act may be done by the guardian or may be done with the consent of the guardian or another person having lawful charge.
Act Done By Guardian
The guardian may personally undertake the act where the circumstances permit.
For example, a guardian may take necessary action to protect or treat a child.
Act Done With Guardian’s Consent
The act may instead be performed by another person with the guardian’s consent.
This is particularly relevant to medical treatment.
For example, a surgeon may perform an operation on a child with the consent of the child’s guardian.
The surgeon performs the medical procedure, while the guardian provides the relevant consent.
Express or Implied Consent
Section 27 expressly recognises:
“either express or implied”
consent.
Therefore, the guardian’s consent does not necessarily have to be expressed in words in every circumstance. Depending upon the facts, it may be inferred from conduct or circumstances.
However, because Section 27 concerns persons who require special protection, the existence and scope of the guardian’s authority must be carefully considered.
7. Benefit of the Child or Person of Unsound Mind
The benefit requirement is one of the most important safeguards in Section 27.
The act must be performed for the benefit of:
“a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind”
The benefit must therefore belong to the child or person of unsound mind, not merely to the guardian or another person.
For example, if a child requires urgent treatment and the guardian authorises the treatment because it is necessary for the child’s health, the requirement of benefit is potentially satisfied.
Similarly, if a person of unsound mind requires treatment and the guardian authorises the treatment for that person’s welfare, the benefit requirement may be fulfilled.
Benefit Does Not Mean Absence of Harm
A very important point is that an act can still be beneficial even though it causes harm.
This is precisely why Section 27 exists.
Medical treatment may cause pain, injury, bleeding or other temporary or even serious harm, but the overall purpose may be to cure a disease or prevent a more serious consequence.
Thus:
The existence of harm does not automatically defeat Section 27 if the harm occurs as part of an act genuinely undertaken for the person’s benefit and the statutory conditions are satisfied.
8. Essential Ingredients of Section 27 BNS
Section 27 can be understood through its major statutory requirements.
The first requirement is that the person concerned must be either:
“under twelve years of age”
or a:
“person of unsound mind.”
The second requirement is that the act must be done:
“in good faith.”
The third requirement is that the act must be:
“for the benefit”
of that person.
The fourth requirement is that the act must be done by, or with the consent of:
“the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person.”
The fifth requirement is that such consent may be:
“either express or implied.”
The sixth requirement concerns the harm caused or contemplated by the act. The provision recognises harm which the act may cause, may be intended to cause, or may be known by the doer to be likely to cause.
However, these general protections remain subject to the four specific limitations in the proviso.
Therefore, the complete understanding of Section 27 requires both the main clause and the proviso to be read together.
9. Limitations of Section 27
The proviso to Section 27 is extremely important.
It begins:
“Provided that this exception shall not extend to—”
and then creates four important limitations.
These limitations prevent Section 27 from becoming an unrestricted power to harm a child or person of unsound mind.
A. Intentional Causing of Death or Attempting to Cause Death
Clause (a) provides that the exception does not extend to:
“the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death”
This is an absolute and fundamental restriction.
A guardian cannot consent to the intentional killing of a child or person of unsound mind and then claim protection under Section 27.
Similarly, an attempt to cause death cannot be protected merely because the guardian consented.
Therefore:
Intentional death = No protection
Attempt to cause death = No protection
This demonstrates that the welfare-based nature of Section 27 cannot be used to justify intentional killing.
10. Limitation Concerning Knowledge of Likely Death
Clause (b) is more detailed.
It excludes:
“the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death”
where it is done:
“for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity”
This is an important distinction.
Knowledge that an act is likely to cause death does not automatically exclude the act from Section 27 in every circumstance.
The law recognises certain exceptional purposes.
If the act is done for:
preventing death, or
preventing grievous hurt, or
curing a grievous disease or infirmity,
the protection may still operate, provided the other requirements of Section 27 are satisfied.
This explains the statutory illustration involving the child and the operation.
The surgeon knows that the operation is likely to cause the child’s death, but the operation is intended to cure the child’s condition.
Therefore, the act falls within the exception according to the illustration.
Important Memory Rule
Knowledge of likely death + prohibited purpose = No protection
Knowledge of likely death + prevention of death/grievous hurt or cure of grievous disease/infirmity = Protection may apply, subject to the section
11. Limitation Concerning Voluntary Grievous Hurt
Clause (c) excludes:
“the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt”
unless it is done:
“for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity.”
This means that voluntary grievous hurt is generally outside the protection.
However, the provision again recognises certain beneficial purposes.
If grievous hurt is caused for the purpose of:
preventing death, or
preventing grievous hurt, or
curing a grievous disease or infirmity,
the exception may potentially apply.
This is consistent with the medical-treatment principle underlying the section.
For example, a surgical procedure may necessarily involve significant physical injury, but if the procedure is genuinely undertaken to cure a serious disease, the law does not necessarily treat the resulting physical harm as criminal.
12. Limitation Concerning Abetment
Clause (d) provides that the exception does not extend to:
“the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.”
This means that Section 27 cannot be used indirectly to protect a person who abets an offence that itself falls outside the protection of the exception.
In other words, a guardian’s consent does not create a general immunity for encouraging, assisting or facilitating an offence that Section 27 does not protect.
This provision prevents the exception from being circumvented through abetment.
13. Medical Treatment and Surgical Operations Under Section 27
Medical treatment is the most important practical application of Section 27.
A child under twelve years of age may require medical treatment but may not be legally positioned to make the relevant decision independently in the same manner as an adult.
Similarly, a person of unsound mind may require treatment where meaningful independent consent may not be available.
Section 27 therefore recognises the role of the guardian or lawful custodian.
The statutory illustration is based precisely on medical treatment.
The child requires treatment for a stone, and the guardian has the child operated upon by a surgeon. The surgeon knows that the operation is likely to cause death but does not intend the child’s death. The object is to cure the child.
The Bare Act therefore places the example within the exception.
The example demonstrates an important principle:
Medical treatment can involve significant harm, yet the law may protect the treatment when it is genuinely undertaken for the patient’s benefit, in good faith, and within the boundaries established by Section 27.
14. Illustration Given Under Section 27
The statutory illustration provides:
“A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, in as much as his object was the cure of the child.”
This illustration is extremely important because it demonstrates several features simultaneously.
The child does not give consent.
The guardian acts:
“in good faith”
and:
“for his child’s benefit.”
The operation is performed by a surgeon.
The surgeon knows that the operation is likely to cause death.
Nevertheless, there is no intention to cause the child’s death.
The purpose is:
“the cure of the child.”
Therefore, the act falls within the exception.
Why Is This Important?
The illustration demonstrates that Section 27 is specifically designed to deal with situations where the child or person of unsound mind cannot provide the relevant consent and the guardian must act for that person’s benefit.
It also demonstrates why the proviso is carefully worded. Knowledge of likely death does not automatically defeat the exception where the purpose is the curing of a grievous disease or infirmity, subject to the statutory requirements.
15. Section 27 vs Section 26 BNS
Sections 26 and 27 are closely related but should not be merged because the person giving consent and the circumstances are different.
Section 26
Section 26 deals with an act done for the benefit of the person concerned where that person has given:
“consent, whether express or implied”
The person himself or herself provides the consent.
Section 27
Section 27 deals with:
“a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind”
and the act is done by, or with the consent of:
“the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person.”
Therefore, the guardian’s role is central.
| Basis | Section 26 | Section 27 |
|---|---|---|
| Person concerned | Person for whose benefit act is done | Child under 12 or person of unsound mind |
| Consent | Consent of the person concerned | Guardian/lawful custodian’s consent |
| Express/implied | Yes | Yes |
| Good faith | Required | Required |
| Benefit | Person’s benefit | Child/person of unsound mind’s benefit |
| Knowledge of harm | May exist | May exist, subject to proviso |
| Special restrictions | No intention to cause death | Detailed restrictions concerning death and grievous hurt |
| Main example | Adult medical treatment | Medical treatment of child/person of unsound mind |
Easy Memory Formula
Section 26 = Person’s own consent + Good faith + Benefit
Section 27 = Guardian’s consent/authority + Good faith + Benefit of child/unsound mind
16. Section 27 vs Section 28 BNS
Section 27 should also be understood in relation to Section 28 because Section 28 deals with situations where consent is not legally valid for the purposes of the General Exceptions.
The central idea is that not every apparent agreement or permission amounts to legally valid consent.
For Section 27, the law specifically provides a mechanism through the guardian or another person having lawful charge because the protected person may not be capable of providing the required consent independently.
Thus, Section 27 is concerned with who may provide the relevant consent or authority, whereas Section 28 helps determine circumstances in which apparent consent is not legally sufficient.
For your notes, it is useful to keep these provisions together:
Section 27 → Special protection involving guardian
Section 28 → Situations where consent is not legally valid
This distinction will become particularly useful when you later study the complete group of General Exceptions.
17. Important Concept: Guardian’s Consent Is Not Absolute
One of the most important points to remember is that a guardian does not possess unlimited authority to consent to harm merely because the person is a guardian.
Section 27 itself imposes strict boundaries.
For example, the guardian cannot authorise:
“the intentional causing of death”
or:
“the attempting to cause death.”
Similarly, the guardian’s consent cannot automatically justify voluntary grievous hurt unless the statutory purposes relating to prevention or cure are satisfied.
Therefore, guardian’s consent is conditional and purpose-based.
The guardian is not given an unrestricted power over the physical integrity of the child or person of unsound mind.
The underlying principle remains:
The act must genuinely be for the benefit of the protected person.
18. Illustrations and Practical Examples
Example 1 — Necessary Surgery for a Child
A child under twelve requires surgery to cure a serious condition. The guardian consents to the surgery. The surgeon performs the operation in good faith for the child’s benefit.
If the operation causes some harm that falls within the protection of Section 27 and its proviso, the exception may apply.
Example 2 — Operation With Known Risk of Death
A child requires an operation to cure a serious condition. The surgeon knows that the operation is likely to cause death but does not intend the child’s death. The guardian authorises the treatment, and the purpose is genuinely to cure the child’s condition.
This closely follows the statutory illustration and may fall within Section 27.
Example 3 — Intentional Killing
A guardian gives permission to another person to deliberately kill the child.
Section 27 cannot protect the act because the proviso expressly excludes:
“the intentional causing of death.”
Example 4 — Grievous Hurt for an Unrelated Purpose
A guardian consents to an act that deliberately causes grievous hurt to a child for a purpose unrelated to preventing death, preventing grievous hurt or curing a grievous disease or infirmity.
The exception cannot be claimed merely because the guardian consented.
The limitation in clause (c) becomes applicable.
Example 5 — Treatment of a Person of Unsound Mind
A person of unsound mind requires medical treatment and is unable to provide meaningful consent. The lawful guardian authorises the treatment. The treatment is performed in good faith for the person’s benefit.
If the act satisfies the remaining requirements of Section 27 and does not fall within one of the exclusions in the proviso, the protection may apply.
FAQs on Section 27 BNS
1. What is the main purpose of Section 27 BNS?
Section 27 BNS provides a General Exception for acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age or a person of unsound mind. The act must be done by, or with the express or implied consent of, the guardian or another person having lawful charge of that person. The provision recognises that such persons may require a guardian to make beneficial decisions on their behalf.
2. Does Section 27 BNS allow a guardian to consent to any harm caused to a child or person of unsound mind?
No. The guardian’s consent is not unlimited. Section 27 expressly excludes the intentional causing of death or an attempt to cause death. It also places restrictions on acts known to be likely to cause death and on voluntarily causing or attempting to cause grievous hurt, subject to the specific exceptions mentioned in the proviso.
3. Can Section 27 BNS apply when the person performing the act knows that it is likely to cause death?
Yes, but only in the circumstances permitted by the proviso. Section 27’s illustration involves a surgeon who knows that an operation on a child is likely to cause death but does not intend to cause death and performs it in good faith for the child’s cure. The provision can therefore protect such an act where the purpose is, for example, preventing death or grievous hurt or curing a grievous disease or infirmity, subject to all other requirements.
4. What is the role of the guardian’s consent under Section 27 BNS?
The act must be done “by, or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge” of the child or person of unsound mind. Thus, the act may be performed directly by the guardian or by another person with the guardian’s consent. However, the consent must operate within the purpose of the provision—the act must be done in good faith for the benefit of the protected person.
5. What is the difference between Section 26 and Section 27 BNS?
The primary difference is whose consent is involved. Section 26 applies where the person for whose benefit the act is done gives consent, whereas Section 27 specifically deals with a person under twelve years of age or a person of unsound mind, where the act is done by or with the consent of the guardian or person having lawful charge.
