New Delhi: A viral video by a retired woman officer of the Indian Army has reignited a debate over women’s safety, sexual assault and the use of weapons or other equipment for self-defence.
The retired officer suggested that women consider using air guns as a means of protecting themselves from potential attackers. The suggestion has triggered considerable discussion online, including questions about the legality, licensing requirements and practical use of air guns and other self-defence devices.
The broader legal position, however, is more nuanced.
Indian law recognises a person’s right to private defence. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code for offences committed from July 1, 2024, a person facing an unlawful threat can exercise the right of private defence within the limits prescribed by law. The critical questions are whether there was a reasonable apprehension of danger and whether the force used was necessary for the purpose of defence.
This means the mere possession of a self-defence device does not automatically make its use lawful in every situation. The circumstances in which it is used remain central to any subsequent criminal investigation or court proceedings.
What does the BNS say about private defence?
Sections 34 to 44 of the BNS deal with the right of private defence of the body and property.
Section 37 places an important limitation on that right: private defence does not extend to causing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence. In other words, the law recognises the right to protect oneself but places limits on the amount of force that can lawfully be used.
Section 40 deals specifically with when the right of private defence of the body begins and ends.
It says the right begins as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit an offence. It continues only for as long as that apprehension of danger continues.
Therefore, the law does not require a woman to wait until an assault has actually been completed before taking defensive action. At the same time, the existence and continuation of a reasonable threat are important when determining whether a particular use of force falls within private defence.
This distinction can become particularly important in cases involving pepper spray, air guns, tasers or other devices capable of causing injury.
When can private defence extend to causing death?
The BNS provides additional protection in situations involving particularly serious threats.
Section 38 says the right of private defence of the body can extend to voluntarily causing death or other harm to an attacker in specified circumstances. These include an assault that reasonably creates an apprehension of death or grievous hurt, an assault with the intention of committing rape, certain kidnapping or abduction situations, wrongful confinement in specified circumstances, and certain acid attacks.
The provision is nevertheless subject to the restrictions in Section 37.
That means Section 38 should not be read as a blanket permission to use lethal force whenever a person feels threatened. The nature of the assault, the circumstances confronting the person and the necessity of the response would remain relevant.
For example, an immediate assault with an apparent intention to commit rape is expressly among the circumstances in which the statutory right of private defence can extend to causing death. A verbal argument or offensive remark, by itself, would not fall into the same category.
What about pepper spray?
Pepper spray is often marketed as a non-lethal self-defence product, but its use can still become a legal issue if it causes injury.
A 2024 Karnataka High Court case involved an allegation that pepper spray had been used during a dispute with security personnel. The petitioners argued that they had used the spray in private defence.
The court observed that pepper spray could constitute a dangerous weapon in the circumstances and held that the claim of private defence was a matter requiring investigation and evidence. The court also referred to the absence of an established blanket legal rule determining the status of pepper spray in every situation.
Importantly, the court considered whether there had been an imminent threat or danger. It did not establish a general rule that using pepper spray is always illegal or always lawful.
The case illustrates why the circumstances surrounding its use matter.
A person who uses pepper spray during an immediate physical assault could potentially rely on private defence. But using it merely because someone shouted, insulted or verbally harassed them would raise a very different question.
Can women legally keep air guns?
The legal position on air guns depends on their specifications.
Under the Arms Rules, 2016, air weapons with muzzle energy exceeding 20 joules or 15 ft-lbs and/or a bore exceeding 0.177 inch or 4.5 mm are subject to licensing requirements. They are treated as firearms for the purposes of the licensing regime.
Lower-powered air weapons falling below the specified thresholds are not subject to the same arms-licensing requirement.
However, that does not mean that such air guns can simply be purchased from anywhere without documentation.
Rule 84 provides that air weapons must be sold or transferred through authorised arms and ammunition dealers or licensed air-weapon dealers. For lower-powered air weapons, the dealer must obtain identification and residence proof from the buyer and issue an invoice containing the relevant particulars.
Therefore, the description of a low-powered air gun as “licence-free” should not be confused with an absence of regulation.
The specifications of the particular weapon also matter. Anyone considering purchasing an air gun should establish its muzzle energy and bore and comply with the applicable rules rather than relying only on the product being advertised as a “self-defence” weapon.
What happens if a self-defence weapon seriously injures someone?
This is where the distinction between a weapon and the legal right of private defence becomes particularly important.
Section 118 of the BNS deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It covers instruments for shooting, stabbing or cutting, as well as certain other means capable of causing serious injury. The provision prescribes punishment where its ingredients are established.
However, a person acting lawfully in private defence is not automatically guilty merely because the attacker is injured.
The issue would be whether the act falls within the statutory right of private defence and complies with its restrictions.
This is why saying that an air gun, pepper spray or another device is “legal for self-defence” is incomplete. The legality of the particular use depends on the circumstances in which it was deployed.
Self-defence does not mean unlimited force
The central principle is necessity.
A person may respond to an unlawful threat, but the response cannot simply continue after the danger has ended or exceed what is necessary for defence.
Section 40’s reference to a reasonable apprehension of danger is therefore significant. The right begins when such apprehension arises and continues while the danger persists.
This also means that the law will examine the circumstances from the point at which the defensive action occurred.
In a genuine emergency, a person may have very little time to assess an attack. Whether the response was legally justified is ultimately a matter for the investigating authorities and, where necessary, the courts based on the evidence.
Where can these devices not be carried?
Even where possession of an item is lawful, transportation restrictions can apply at specific locations.
For example, the CISF’s prohibited-items list for civil airports includes compressed air guns, pellet guns, BB guns and firearms among items prohibited from carriage on flights.
Delhi Metro’s published list of prohibited articles also includes air rifles, BB guns, compressed air guns, pellet guns, stun guns and shocking devices.
Therefore, a person cannot assume that a legally possessed air gun or other defensive device can be carried everywhere.
Transport operators and security zones can have separate restrictions, and travellers should check the applicable rules before carrying any such equipment.
What legal experts say
Advocate Jayshree Satpute, speaking to India Today, emphasised that the legality of defensive action generally depends on whether the response was necessary in the circumstances and whether it was directed at an actual unlawful threat.
Her explanation highlights the distinction between using a defensive device during an attempted serious physical assault and using the same device during a verbal confrontation.
Senior advocate Mahalaxmi Pavani has similarly argued that the right of private defence must be considered from the perspective of the person facing the immediate threat, while recognising that the statutory limits continue to apply.
Senior advocate Avi Singh has also stressed that the right of private defence is legally recognised but that the circumstances of the action would have to be established if a criminal case arises.
Their comments underline a common point: the law does not prohibit a woman from defending herself, but the use of force remains subject to the facts of each incident.
The larger question of women’s safety
The debate over air guns and pepper spray is ultimately part of a much larger discussion about women’s safety.
Self-defence equipment may provide an additional option in an emergency, but it does not replace policing, emergency response, safe public infrastructure or effective investigation and prosecution of crimes against women.
The legal framework gives individuals a recognised right to defend themselves against unlawful threats. At the same time, that right has boundaries intended to prevent defensive action from becoming unnecessary or retaliatory violence.
For women considering an air gun or another device for personal safety, the important legal questions are therefore not simply whether the item can be purchased.
They include whether the particular device is subject to licensing requirements, whether it can legally be carried in the intended location and, most importantly, whether its use in a particular situation would fall within the right of private defence.
The BNS provides protection in serious situations, including assaults involving an intention to commit rape, but it does not create an unrestricted licence to use force. The circumstances, the immediacy of the threat and the necessity of the response remain central to the legal assessment.