Know your laws: Women's safety and weapons – the right to self defence

A viral video by a retired lady officer of the Indian Army has created a storm on social media over women’s safety, sexual assault and self-defence.

The lady officer has suggested that women should start using air guns to defend themselves from potential assault.

While a lot of online chatter has looked at the cost of such CO2-powered pellet guns and licencing red tape, the video does raise a very serious issue of women’s safety and self-defence.

On Monday, the Supreme Court also flagged “institutional failure” by the police and the government in ensuring the safety of women and the rising number of sexual assault cases.

So can Indian women take to air guns and other ‘safety’ equipment to protect themselves?

The answer is yes, but with some caveats.

Yes-- the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and even the older IPC recognised the right to self-defence and protect someone from criminal prosecution.

But it is a legal defence-- which means that women can use an air gun or taser or pepper spray to defend themselves, but if the attacker is seriously hurt or dies because of it, the assault victim will have to justify why she chose to use force to defend herself.

Under the BNS provisions, causing hurt or grievous hurt by "use of dangerous weapon" is an offence in itself- Section 118 of the BNS provides for punishment for causing hurt or grievous hurt using a "dangerous weapon" which has been defined as anything that can be used "shooting, stabbing or cutting", or "fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood.."

This means that any person found using such weapons-- even safety equipment like pepper spray or air guns or taser would potentially face criminal proecution and would have to justify their right of private defence. HOW DOES LAW DEFINE 'SELF DEFENCE' OR 'PRIVATE DEFENCE' ?

Sections 34 – 44 of the BNS define the right of self defence-- both for attacks on the body and attacks on property. This means that any person facing a direct threat has the right to give evidence of the threat and justify their response, even if it hurts or even kills their attacker.

Section 38 specifies that if the potential victim is defending themselves against murder, rape, serious injury, acid attack or kidnapping, the right of private defence would allow them to seriously hurt or even kill their attacker. BUT the victim would have to show that their use of force was proportionate to the threat that they faced.

Section 40 also specifies that right of self-defence arises when a reasonable apprehension of danger begins and continues only so long as that danger persists-- meaning that simply being afraid cannot justify use of such safety equipment—one needs to show "reasonable apprehension of danger" – For example, one cannot pepper spray someone for shouting or cat calling.. but if there is a physical attack involved then even air gun or actual gun use can be justified as "private defence."

In 2024, the Karnataka High court noted that pepper spray seemed to be a “dangerous weapon” which can cause serious injuries, and noted that its use had to be justified --- only when there is “imminent threat or danger caused to her life."

The High Court, in its order, therefore asked the Police to investigate whether a woman who pepper sprayed a security guard during a scuffle “acted in self-defence”.

Similar issues could be faced by a woman using any other ‘self-defence weapon – including Air Guns.

If the alleged attacker gets hurt or dies, the victim woman could face a criminal case-- and would have to prove to the court that she faced a serious threat from the attacker, which justified the use of force.

When it comes to air guns, another issue would also be licencing – there is no licence needed for ‘low power” air guns-- with Muzzle energy of 20 joules or fewer and bore of .177" (4.5 mm) or less. As specified in the 2016 Arms Act Rules –

However, Rule 84 says that purchase can be done only from licenced dealers, and both ID proof and residence proof have to be submitted.

Another aspect is that there are restrictions under the law about carrying such weapons in security zones- for example, Metro trains and airports ban carrying any such things – so any woman carrying pepper spray or an air gun may be barred from carrying this safety equipment while travelling. WHAT DO LEGAL EXPERTS SAY?

Speaking to India Today, Advocate Jayshree Satpute pointed out that “The legality of a defensive act generally depends less on the particular weapon used and more on whether the response was necessary and proportionate to the threat faced. Using an air gun against someone attempting rape or a serious physical assault is more likely to fall within the scope of private defence than its use in response to verbal harassment or offensive remarks alone,” said Satpute.

In short, the key legal question is usually not whether the item used was an air gun, pepper spray, or another defensive tool, but whether there was a reasonable apprehension of an unlawful threat and whether the response was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, she added.

Senior advocate Mahalaxmi Pavani also points out that the “The BNS recognises this right including against extremely serious sexual violence, and it must be assessed from the perspective of the person facing the threat rather than purely through hindsight.”

“If a woman faces an immediate threat to her safety, she should have reasonable means to protect herself. The law cannot expect her, in a moment of fear and danger, to calculate the precise limits of private defence,” says Pavani.

Pavani also says that different circumstances may call for different practical means of protection: pepper spray can provide a portable means of defence when a woman is outside the home, while appropriately classified low-power air weapons, where legally permissible, may serve as one possible means of protecting the home.

Where immediate State protection cannot always be guaranteed, women should not be expected simply to wait for institutional intervention, particularly given the well-documented difficulties and delays that can arise in reporting, investigation and prosecution.

"A woman facing an attacker should be able to protect herself without being paralysed by the fear that every action will later be judged through the lens of hindsight,” says Pavani.

Senior advocate Avi Singh also told India today that the right of self-defence is “always legal, but the burden is on you to prove that you acted in self defence.”

Singh, in fact, is of the opinion that women in India could make a case to seek licences for air guns or even actual guns, depending on their circumstances. “It is not unreasonable for a woman to carry weapons, given the failure of the state to protect them. The law says you can apply for a license as long as you can prove a threat,” says Singh.- Ends

Aneesha Mathur is a Special Correspondent for India Today where she puts her LLB degree to use covering Legal issues and cases in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High court and other courts/tribunals.

Aneesha joined India Today in October 2018. After graduating from St Stephen's College and Faculty of law,Delhi University, she spent the formative years of her career in print Media.

Her interest in journalism stems from experience while interning with Legal services and Juvenile justice board as a law student, where she learnt the importance of ensuring that accurate information reaches the world, and that stories about individual experiences and statistics that show a "bigger picture" must supplement each other so other people can see what the large impact of a small thing can be. When not working or thinking about the law and it's state, Aneesha hides from reality in fantasy novels, rom-coms and food.