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

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.

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 :

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.