Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 270
Public nuisance
A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right but a common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
Why this exists
Some harmful conduct doesn't target one specific victim but spreads inconvenience or danger across a whole community — noise, foul smells, blocked roads, polluted air or water. This foundational definition, carried over from the old IPC Section 268, sets the boundary for what counts as this kind of collective harm, and the following sections in this chapter build specific offences (like fouling water, polluting air, or rash driving) on top of it. It reflects the idea that a business or activity being useful to its owner does not excuse the harm it inflicts on everyone else nearby.
How courts read it
Indian courts have long held that an activity does not escape being a public nuisance simply because it is otherwise lawful or convenient for the person carrying it out — the key question is the effect on the community. In the well-known case of Ram Baj Singh (Dr.) v. Babulal, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a flour mill whose operation caused dust and noise to spread into a neighbouring physician's clinic, affecting his patients; the court held that even a lawful business becomes actionable when it substantially interferes with the health, comfort, and convenience of others in the vicinity.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: An activity can't be a public nuisance if it is a legal, licensed business.
Fact: Being lawful or profitable does not excuse an activity from being a public nuisance if it causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public.