Indian criminal law | IPC 269 and BNS 271
IPC Section 269: Negligent Act Likely to Spread Infection - Current BNS Law
Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addressed unlawful or negligent conduct likely to spread an infection of a disease dangerous to life, where the person knew or had reason to believe that the conduct carried that risk. For offences committed after the new criminal law commenced on 1 July 2024, the corresponding provision is Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Former law: IPC Section 269. Current law: BNS Section 271. Maximum punishment: imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine, or both. Core requirement: an unlawful or negligent act that the person knows, or has reason to believe, is likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life.
Text and meaning of IPC Section 269
The former Section 269 stated: "Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
In plain language, the offence addresses conduct creating a legally relevant risk of spreading a dangerous infectious disease. The prosecution must establish the statutory elements; merely being ill or having an infection is not, by itself, an offence under this section.
Current law: BNS Section 271
Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is titled Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. It substantially carries forward the offence formerly defined in IPC Section 269. It covers an unlawful or negligent act that is likely to spread an infection dangerous to life, where the accused knows or has reason to believe that the act is likely to spread it.
The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 358 of the BNS contains repeal-and-savings provisions concerning the IPC; the date and circumstances of the alleged conduct matter when identifying the applicable statute.
Essential ingredients of the offence
- An act: the accused must have done an act relevant to the alleged transmission risk.
- Unlawfulness or negligence: the act must have been unlawful or negligent in the circumstances; the law does not criminalise every ordinary interaction during an outbreak.
- Likelihood of spreading infection: the act must be likely to spread an infection of a disease dangerous to life. Mere speculation, without relevant facts, is insufficient.
- Knowledge or reason to believe: the accused must know or have reason to believe that the act is likely to spread that infection. The statutory phrase requires consideration of the information and circumstances available to the person.
Actual transmission is not expressly required by the wording: the offence is framed around a sufficiently established likelihood of spreading infection. Whether the required likelihood existed is a question of evidence and the particular circumstances.
Punishment under IPC Section 269 and BNS Section 271
| Provision | Conduct | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| IPC Section 269 (former) | Unlawful or negligent act likely to spread a life-endangering infection | Imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine, or both |
| BNS Section 271 (current) | Corresponding negligent or unlawful infection-spread offence | Imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine, or both |
| IPC Section 270 / BNS Section 272 | Malignant act likely to spread a life-endangering infection | Imprisonment of either description up to two years, or fine, or both |
The amount of any fine and the sentence depend on the applicable statutory framework and judicial determination. Other public-health orders and legislation may create separate obligations or offences.
Examples: when could Section 271 apply?
Disregarding a known infection risk
A person who knows that a particular activity creates a serious risk of spreading a life-endangering infection, yet negligently undertakes it, may attract scrutiny under Section 271. The prosecution must still prove the required act, risk and mental element.
Unsafe conduct in a workplace or public setting
Where a person acts unlawfully or negligently in circumstances involving a dangerous infectious disease, the offence may be relevant if the statutory likelihood and knowledge requirements are established. Breach of a workplace rule alone does not automatically prove this criminal offence.
Medical and scientific evidence
Evidence about the disease, means of transmission, relevant exposure and contemporaneous information can be important. A diagnosis alone does not prove negligent or unlawful conduct or knowledge of the relevant risk.
Difference between negligent and malignant spread
IPC Section 269 / BNS Section 271 concerns unlawful or negligent acts likely to spread dangerous infection. IPC Section 270 / BNS Section 272 addresses a malignant act of the same general kind and provides a higher maximum term of imprisonment. The facts and evidence must support the elements of the specific charge; the two provisions should not be treated as interchangeable.
Other applicable public-health laws
Depending on the facts, disease-control orders, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, disaster-management directions or other applicable rules may be relevant. Their applicability, validity and any penalties must be assessed independently. An allegation of infection-related conduct does not automatically establish a breach of every public-health law.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current BNS equivalent of IPC Section 269?
BNS Section 271, effective from 1 July 2024, is the corresponding provision.
What is the maximum punishment?
Imprisonment of either description for up to six months, or a fine, or both.
Must somebody actually become infected?
The wording focuses on an act likely to spread infection; actual transmission is not an express ingredient. The required likelihood and other elements must nevertheless be proved.
Is a person criminally liable merely because they have an infectious disease?
No. The statute requires an unlawful or negligent act, a likelihood of spreading a disease dangerous to life, and knowledge or reason to believe concerning that likelihood.
Does the IPC still matter for older incidents?
Yes. The BNS repealed the IPC subject to savings in Section 358. The date of the alleged act and the applicable transitional rules must be considered.
Official legislation and related reading
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - official India Code PDF (Sections 271, 272 and 358).
- India Code - official Government of India legislation portal (IPC, BNS and public-health legislation).
- IPC Section 268 - Public nuisance.
- IPC Section 270 - Malignant act likely to spread infection.
- Indian Penal Code - Definitions, sections and punishments.
Last reviewed: 30 October 2026. General legal information only; consult the applicable statutory text and relevant facts for a particular case.