IPC Section 291 and BNS Section 293: Continuance of Public Nuisance After Injunction

What did IPC Section 291 provide?

Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was titled Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue. It punished a person who repeated or continued a public nuisance despite a direction issued by a public servant legally empowered to require its discontinuance.

The punishment under IPC Section 291 was simple imprisonment for a term extending to six months, or fine, or both. The provision did not itself state a fixed maximum amount of fine; the applicable general rules governing fines therefore mattered.

This section addressed disobedience of a lawful direction in relation to a public nuisance, not every private inconvenience or neighbourhood disagreement.

BNS Section 293: Current law on continuing a public nuisance

Section 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, retains the central rule of IPC Section 291: a person who repeats or continues a public nuisance after a lawful injunction by an authorised public servant may be punished.

Maximum punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to Rs. 5,000, or both. Unlike the former IPC wording, BNS Section 293 expressly specifies the monetary ceiling.

The expression simple imprisonment refers to imprisonment without the requirement of hard labour associated with rigorous imprisonment.

Meaning of public nuisance, injunction and the essential ingredients

What is a public nuisance?

IPC Section 268 and the corresponding BNS Section 270 describe public nuisance broadly as an act or illegal omission causing common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people generally living or occupying property in the vicinity, or necessarily causing injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to people exercising a public right. The existence of some convenience or advantage does not automatically excuse a common nuisance.

What does injunction mean here?

In this provision, an injunction is a legally authorised direction to stop or not repeat a public nuisance. The direction must come from a public servant with lawful authority. It should not be confused automatically with every civil-court injunction or an informal request by a private person.

What must ordinarily be established?

1. A public nuisance existed or was being committed.
2. A public servant possessing lawful authority directed the person not to repeat or continue it.
3. The direction applied to the person and the conduct in question.
4. The person repeated or continued the nuisance after that direction.

The validity, scope and communication of the direction, as well as evidence of continued nuisance, can be material to a particular case.

IPC Section 291 versus BNS Section 293

For the distinct offence of committing a public nuisance where no other punishment is provided, see IPC Section 290, corresponding to BNS Section 292. The additional feature under Section 291/293 is continuation or repetition after a lawful injunction.

Is BNS Section 293 cognizable and bailable?

According to the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), an offence under BNS Section 293 is:

• Cognizable: the police have the statutory powers applicable to cognizable offences, subject to procedural safeguards.
• Bailable: bail is governed by the legal rights and requirements applicable to bailable offences.
• Triable by any Magistrate: the schedule assigns trial jurisdiction to any Judicial Magistrate competent under the law.

Classification does not mean that arrest is mandatory in every case. The circumstances, evidence and applicable BNSS safeguards remain important.

How can a continuing nuisance be reported?

A person affected may report the facts to the appropriate local authority or police, describing the nuisance, the lawful order requiring it to stop, and evidence that it continued afterward. Depending on the circumstances, administrative or preventive remedies may also be available under applicable municipal laws and the BNSS.

Examples of continuing a public nuisance after a lawful direction

• Obstruction of a public passage: an authorised official directs the removal of a recurring obstruction that constitutes a public nuisance, but the responsible person restores it.
• Hazardous public dumping: an authorised public servant orders a person to stop conduct creating a public health nuisance, yet the same conduct continues.
• Repeated harmful emissions: a legally competent authority issues a direction addressing a qualifying public nuisance, but the activity continues in defiance of that direction.

These examples are illustrative only. The exact offence depends on the nature of the nuisance, the public servant's legal authority, the terms of the direction and the facts proved. Special environmental, municipal or other laws may also apply.

Frequently asked questions

What is the current BNS equivalent of IPC Section 291?

The corresponding provision is BNS Section 293, dealing with continuance of nuisance after an injunction to discontinue it.

What is the maximum fine under BNS Section 293?

The fine may extend to Rs. 5,000. The court may instead impose simple imprisonment up to six months, or both imprisonment and fine.

Does every complaint about noise or inconvenience amount to this offence?

No. The conduct must qualify as a public nuisance, and the prosecution must establish the relevant lawful direction and subsequent repetition or continuation.

Is an order from a private individual enough?

No. The section requires an injunction issued by a public servant with lawful authority to issue it.

Is this offence bailable?

Yes. BNS Section 293 is classified as bailable under the BNSS First Schedule.