# Definition of 'Good Faith' — Section 3(22)

## Statutory Definition

> Section 3(22): A thing shall be deemed to be done in 'good faith' where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.

## The Core Test

The only test under this definition is HONESTY.

> Honest = Good Faith

> Dishonest = Not Good Faith

Negligence is IRRELEVANT under this definition. An act done honestly but negligently is still in good faith.

## Honesty vs Negligence — Critical Distinction

Act Performed	Honestly	Negligently	Good Faith?
Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Yes	No	No	No
Yes	No	Yes	No

## Important Caveat — Special Definitions Override

> This definition does NOT apply to that enactment which contains a special definition of 'good faith'. There, the definition given in that particular enactment has to be followed.

### Example: Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 52 of IPC defines 'good faith' as:

> "Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention."

Under IPC, good faith requires due care and attention (i.e., NO negligence). This is stricter than the General Clauses Act definition.

### Comparison Table

Statute	Good Faith Test
General Clauses Act, 1897	Honestly done (negligence irrelevant)
Indian Penal Code, 1860	With due care and attention (negligence destroys good faith)

## Why the Difference?

General Clauses Act: Wider standard — protects people who act honestly even if they make mistakes
IPC: Stricter standard — for criminal matters, mere honesty is not enough; one must also be careful

## Practical Application Rule

When interpreting any Act:

1. First check: Does the Act define 'good faith'? → Use that definition

2. If not: Apply Section 3(22) of General Clauses Act → Honesty test

## Example

Scenario: A bank officer pays a forged cheque believing it to be genuine. He was honest but failed to notice a clear discrepancy in the signature (negligence).

Under General Clauses Act: Good faith — because he acted honestly
Under IPC: NOT good faith — because he failed to exercise due care

Worked example

### Example 1

Q: A officer makes a decision honestly but carelessly, resulting in loss to the department. Has he acted in 'good faith' under Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act?

A: Yes. Section 3(22) defines good faith purely in terms of honesty — 'whether it is done negligently or not'. Since the officer acted honestly, he is deemed to have acted in good faith, even though he was negligent. However, if the specific statute applicable has its own stricter definition of good faith (e.g., the IPC), that would prevail.

### Example 2

Q: Compare the definition of 'good faith' under the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

A: Under Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, good faith means honestly done, irrespective of negligence. Under Section 52 of IPC, good faith requires the act to be done with due care and attention — negligence destroys good faith. The IPC standard is stricter than the General Clauses Act standard. Where a particular Act has its own definition (like IPC), that prevails over the General Clauses Act.

⚠️ Common exam mistakes

Believing negligence destroys good faith under the General Clauses Act — it does NOT
Applying the IPC definition of good faith universally — it applies only to IPC and statutes with similar definitions
Confusing 'good faith' with 'absence of negligence' — under General Clauses Act, the test is honesty only
Not remembering that special definitions in particular enactments override the General Clauses Act

Bare-Act text Section 3(22) · The General Clauses Act, 1897 · click to expand

A thing shall be deemed to be done in 'good faith' where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.

Now that you've read this — what's next?

Move from understanding → mastery in 3 clicks. Each option below picks up from this lesson's topic.

🔥 Drill 5 Qs on this → ✍️ Adaptive practice →

Definition of 'Good Faith' [Section 3(22)]

Worked example

⚠️ Common exam mistakes