BACK TO SECTIONS
BailableCognizable: Non-Cognizable (most)Any Magistrate

Reform Highlights

1

Renumbered from IPC 268–290 to BNS 280–290.

2

Food and drug adulteration provisions preserved and modernised.

3

Animal negligence provisions relevant to dangerous dog attacks.

THE STATUTE

The Clause

Section 280: 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. Section 284: Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance. Section 286: Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance. Section 289: Negligent conduct with respect to animal.

Legal Commentary

Sections 280–290 address public nuisance — acts or omissions that harm, annoy, or endanger not a specific individual but the general public or a neighbourhood. Public nuisance straddles the line between civil law (which provides injunctions and damages) and criminal law (which provides punishment). The BNS criminalises it where the harm to public welfare is sufficient to justify state intervention. Section 280 contains the general definition — any act causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public. More specific provisions address: adulteration of food or drugs (a major public health concern), fouling water sources, negligent conduct with poisonous substances (Section 284), negligent conduct with explosives (Section 286), and negligent conduct with animals (Section 289). The animal negligence provision (Section 289) has become important in the context of dangerous dogs — owners of aggressive breeds who allow their animals to roam freely and who have attacked people are prosecuted under this section. The food and drug adulteration provisions (Sections 272–276) are among the most practically important public nuisance provisions: selling adulterated food, mixing poisonous substances with food or drink, and adulterating medical drugs all attract punishment, with enhanced sentences where the adulteration is likely to cause death.

Landmark Precedents

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987)

AIR 1987 SC 1086
RELEVANCE

Established absolute liability for hazardous substances — complements BNS 280–290 public health and nuisance provisions for environmental harm and public safety liability.

Case Simulations

"An industrial plant that dumps toxic effluents into a river used for drinking water by downstream villages — public nuisance and potentially causing danger under BNS 280/284."
"A person who keeps a known aggressive Rottweiler without a leash or enclosure — negligent conduct with respect to an animal under BNS 289."
"A sweet shop that uses banned synthetic food colour in its products — adulteration of food under BNS 272."

Expert Insights

It may constitute a public nuisance under BNS 280 if it causes common annoyance to residents. Additionally, the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 provide specific standards. Local municipal by-laws also apply. First-time violations are typically addressed through warnings and fines.
Yes. Sections 272–276 (food and drug adulteration) criminalise mixing injurious substances into food or drink intended for sale. The Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 also applies, with its own comprehensive enforcement framework.