The Right of Private Defence is a critical legal doctrine under criminal law, particularly codified under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

The Right of Private Defence is a critical legal doctrine under criminal law, particularly codified under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Your statement is correct that this right is not absolute, and I’ll now explain this principle in a structured manner:

---

⚖️ Meaning and Foundation

The Right of Private Defence is based on the principle of self-help—that when immediate assistance from the state is not available, a person may protect their life, liberty, or property using reasonable force.

Cardinal Principle:

> "It is the primary duty of man to help himself before seeking aid from the state."

🔒 Why It Is Not Absolute

Although fundamental, this right is limited by law to prevent misuse. It is governed by statutory conditions to maintain a balance between self-defence and public order.

✅ Permissible Use:

You can exercise this right when:

There is imminent danger to life, limb, or property.

No time to seek police protection.

The force used is proportional to the threat faced.

❌ Not Allowed When:

No immediate threat exists (retaliation or revenge is not allowed).

The defender provokes the attack.

The threat is to property only, and there is no risk to life (with some exceptions).

The harm caused is grossly disproportionate to the injury threatened.

---

📜 Legal Basis in IPC

Section 96: Things done in private defence are not an offence.

Section 97: Right extends to protection of body and property.

Section 99: Limits the right (e.g., no right against lawful public servants).

Section 100: Right of private defence of body causing death (e.g., against grievous hurt, rape, acid attack, etc.)

Section 103: When defence of property extends to causing death.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Judicial Interpretation

Courts have consistently held that:

The right must be exercised in good faith.

It is a protective and not a punitive right.

Each case must be judged on the facts and immediacy of the threat.

> 🔎 Case Law Example:

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333

Supreme Court held that right of private defence cannot be weighed in golden scales, and it depends on the perception of danger and immediacy.

✅ Conclusion

The Right of Private Defence is a qualified right, not an unrestricted license to cause harm. It exists to ensure justice, not revenge, and is bounded by the necessity, immediacy, and proportionality of the threat faced.