Offences Affecting Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals under BNS: Chapter XV Sections 270 to 297 and Landmark Cases

A restaurant serves adulterated food; a pharmacy sells expired drugs as fresh; a driver races recklessly through crowded streets; a factory poisons the air near a residential colony; a shop sells obscene material; a bookseller displays pornography to children. Each is an offence against the general welfare, not directed at a specific victim but at the broader public. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses these public welfare offences through Chapter XV, twenty-eight provisions across Sections 270 to 297. The chapter covers public nuisance, spreading of infectious diseases, food and drug adulteration, negligent conduct with dangerous substances, rash and negligent driving, obscenity, and lottery. Together the provisions form the criminal law's response to conduct that endangers or offends the public. This module walks through each grouping, the Kedar Nath and Ranjit Udeshi frameworks on obscenity, the modern Aveek Sarkar test, and the leading cases.

1. Introduction

The public welfare offences

Chapter XV addresses offences against the general public rather than against specific individuals. The characteristic feature is that the harm is diffuse: an adulterated food batch may sicken hundreds of consumers; a polluted water source may affect an entire community; obscene material may offend general public morals. The criminal law's response is correspondingly general, focused on the public interest rather than on specific victims.

Chapter XV overviewed

Sections	Theme
270-292 (partial), 293	Public nuisance framework
271-273	Infectious disease and quarantine
274-278	Food and drug adulteration
279-280	Water and air pollution
281-285	Public way, driving, and navigation
286-291	Negligent conduct with dangerous substances
294-296	Obscenity
297	Lottery offices

The five grouped themes

Public health (disease, food, drugs, water, air).
Public safety (dangerous substances, dangerous conduct).
Public convenience (nuisance, obstructions).
Public decency (obscenity).
Public morals (gambling, lottery).

2. Public Nuisance

Section 270: definition

Section 270 BNS (formerly Section 268 IPC)

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.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

Section 270 defines public nuisance broadly. The definition captures any act or illegal omission causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or to those in the vicinity. Section 270 is a definition; the punishment for unclassified public nuisance is under Section 292.

Section 292: general punishment

Section 292 (formerly Section 290 IPC) provides the punishment for public nuisance not otherwise addressed: fine up to one thousand rupees. This modest punishment reflects that most public nuisance cases are addressed through the specific provisions (rash driving, negligent handling of dangerous substances, and so on) rather than through the general provision.

Section 293: continuance after injunction

Section 293 (formerly Section 291 IPC) punishes continuance of a public nuisance after having been enjoined by a public servant lawfully authorised to do so. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. The provision addresses the specific evil of persons who continue harmful conduct despite being formally ordered to stop.

3. Infection and Disease

Section 271: Negligent act likely to spread infection

Section 271 BNS (formerly Section 269 IPC)

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.

Section 272: Malignant act likely to spread infection

Section 272 BNS (formerly Section 270 IPC)

Whoever malignantly 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 two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sections 271 and 272 punish conduct likely to spread infectious diseases. The distinction is the mens rea:

Section 271: negligent conduct. Up to six months, or fine, or both.
Section 272: malignant conduct (deliberate). Up to two years, or fine, or both.

The provisions have received particular attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and other outbreaks, where courts have applied them to violations of quarantine, deliberate spreading, and similar conduct.

Section 273: Disobedience to quarantine rule

Section 273 (formerly Section 271 IPC) punishes disobedience to any quarantine rule. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. The provision has become particularly important during public health emergencies.

4. Food and Drug Adulteration

Sections 274 and 275: Food adulteration and noxious food

Section 274 BNS (formerly Section 272 IPC)

Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 274 punishes adulteration of food or drink. Section 275 (formerly Section 273 IPC) punishes selling noxious food or drink knowing it to be noxious. Punishment: same as Section 274. Both provisions operate alongside the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides the comprehensive regulatory framework and more specific offences.

Sections 276 to 278: Drug adulteration and misrepresentation

Section 276 (Section 274 IPC): adulteration of drugs. Punishment: up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Section 277 (Section 275 IPC): sale of adulterated drugs. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Section 278 (Section 276 IPC): sale of drug as a different drug or preparation. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

These provisions operate alongside the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which provides the primary regulatory framework.

5. Water and Air Pollution

Section 279: Fouling water of public spring or reservoir

Section 279 (formerly Section 277 IPC) punishes voluntary corruption or fouling of the water of any public spring or reservoir so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 280: Making atmosphere noxious to health

Section 280 (formerly Section 278 IPC) punishes voluntarily vitiating the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way. Punishment: fine up to one thousand rupees.

Sections 279 and 280 operate alongside the Water Act, 1974, and the Air Act, 1981, which provide the primary environmental regulatory frameworks.

6. Rash Driving and Navigation

Section 281: Rash driving or riding on public way

Section 281 BNS (formerly Section 279 IPC)

Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 281 is one of the most frequently invoked provisions of Chapter XV, applied in road accident cases. Ingredients:

Driving or riding a vehicle on a public way.
The conduct is rash or negligent.
The conduct endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury.

Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Where the rash driving causes death, Section 106 BNS (causing death by negligence) applies with significantly higher punishment.

Section 282: Rash navigation of vessel

Section 282 (formerly Section 280 IPC) punishes rash or negligent navigation of a vessel endangering human life. Punishment: same as Section 281.

Section 283: Exhibition of false light

Section 283 (formerly Section 281 IPC) punishes exhibition of a false light, mark, or buoy intending to mislead navigators. Punishment: up to seven years and fine.

Section 284: Overloaded vessel

Section 284 (formerly Section 282 IPC) punishes conveying persons by water for hire in an unsafe or overloaded vessel. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.

7. Dangerous Public Way Offences

Section 285 (formerly Section 283 IPC) punishes causing danger or obstruction in a public way or line of navigation. Punishment: fine up to one thousand rupees. Common contexts: leaving construction materials on a road, digging pits without warning signs, unauthorised parking causing obstruction.

8. Negligent Conduct with Dangerous Substances

Section 286: Poison

Section 286 (formerly Section 284 IPC) punishes negligent conduct with poisonous substances endangering human life. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 287: Fire or combustible matter

Section 287 BNS (formerly Section 285 IPC)

Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 288: Explosive substance

Section 288 (formerly Section 286 IPC) punishes negligent conduct with explosive substances endangering human life. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 289: Machinery

Section 289 (formerly Section 287 IPC) punishes negligent conduct with machinery endangering human life. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 290: Buildings

Section 290 (formerly Section 288 IPC) punishes negligent conduct with buildings (particularly demolition or repair) endangering human life. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 291: Animals

Section 291 (formerly Section 289 IPC) punishes negligent conduct with animals endangering human life. Common context: keeping dangerous animals without adequate precautions. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

9. Obscenity Offences

Section 294: Sale of obscene books

Section 294 BNS (formerly Section 292 IPC)

(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2) Whoever:

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever; or
(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation; or
(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation; or
(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person; or
(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section,

shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Section 294 defines obscenity and criminalises the sale, distribution, or possession for sale of obscene material. The definition test: lasciviousness, appeal to prurient interest, or tendency to deprave and corrupt. The provision has various exceptions for artistic, scientific, and educational works.

Section 295: Obscene objects to children

Section 295 BNS (formerly Section 293 IPC)

Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any child any such obscene object as is referred to in Section 294, or offers or attempts so to do, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

Section 295 provides enhanced punishment for supplying obscene material to children. First conviction: up to three years and fine of two thousand rupees. Subsequent conviction: up to seven years and fine of five thousand rupees. The provision reflects the specific concern about children's exposure to obscene material.

Section 296: Obscene acts and songs

Section 296 BNS (formerly Section 294 IPC)

Whoever, to the annoyance of others:

(a) does any obscene act in any public place; or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, or with community service.

Section 296 punishes obscene acts and songs in public places. Punishment: up to three months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both, or community service. The BNS addition of community service reflects modernisation. The provision is commonly invoked in cases of public indecency.

10. Section 297: Lottery Offices

Section 297 BNS (formerly Section 294A IPC)

Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery not being a State lottery or a lottery authorised by the State Government, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

And whoever publishes any proposal to pay any sum, or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in any such lottery, shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

Section 297 punishes running lottery offices. State lotteries and lotteries authorised by state governments are excluded. Punishment: up to six months, or fine, or both, for running the office; fine up to one thousand rupees for publishing lottery proposals. The provision operates alongside the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, which provides the specific regulatory framework.

11. Obscenity Standards: The Judicial Framework

Ranjit Udeshi and the Hicklin test

📖 Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Section 292 IPC (now Section 294 BNS). The Court upheld the provision and adopted the Hicklin test: material is obscene if its tendency is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands the publication may fall. The Court applied the test to hold that D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was obscene under Indian law. Rule: Hicklin test for obscenity.

Aveek Sarkar and the community standards test

📖 Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257

The Supreme Court moved from the Hicklin test to the community standards test. The Court held that obscenity should be judged by contemporary community standards, considering whether the material appeals to prurient interest as a whole, its context, and its artistic or scientific merit. The Court applied the test to hold that a photograph of a tennis player was not obscene despite being partly clad. Rule: modern community standards test.

The Aveek Sarkar approach has since guided obscenity prosecutions. The move from Hicklin to community standards reflects a modernisation of the test, allowing greater artistic and educational freedom while continuing to prohibit genuinely obscene material.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780

The Supreme Court considered censorship of films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Court laid down the framework for pre-censorship: reasonable restrictions in the interests of decency and morality are permitted. Rule: constitutional framework for censorship.

📖 Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered a case about the film Bandit Queen, which contained scenes of nudity and sexual violence. The Court held that the depiction of nudity in a serious artistic context, aimed at conveying the horror of caste violence, was not obscene. Rule: artistic context matters in obscenity analysis.

📖 Perumal Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2016) SC

The Madras High Court considered a case about a novel that had faced accusations of obscenity. The Court emphasised the value of literary freedom and the need for careful analysis before criminalising artistic works. Rule: judicial protection of literary freedom.

📖 Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SC

The Supreme Court considered the framework for hate speech and obscenity in public discourse. The Court elaborated the balance between freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions. Rule: modern balance framework.

📖 Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648

The Supreme Court considered a case of drunken driving that resulted in death. The Court applied Section 279 IPC (now Section 281 BNS) and elaborated the sentencing considerations for rash driving offences. Rule: strict sentencing for road accident cases.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar, (2002) 3 SCC 738

The Supreme Court considered the ingredients of Section 279 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution must establish specifically that the driving was rash or negligent, and that this endangered human life. Rule: specific proof required.

📖 State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Rangappa, (2009) SC

The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 269 and 270 IPC (now Sections 271 and 272 BNS) during a communicable disease outbreak. The Court applied the provisions to conduct that endangered public health. Rule: application in epidemic contexts.

📖 Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the framework for criminal negligence by professionals. The Court laid down the Bolam test with Indian modifications, holding that criminal negligence requires a higher standard than civil negligence. Rule: framework for professional criminal negligence.

📖 Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 205

The Supreme Court considered a case of electric fence causing death. The Court applied Section 285 IPC (now Section 287 BNS) and elaborated the framework for negligent conduct with dangerous substances. Rule: broad interpretation of dangerous means.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. Hicklin test for obscenity.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257. Modern community standards test.
K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780. Censorship framework.
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1. Artistic context matters.
Perumal Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2016) SC. Literary freedom.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SC. Modern balance framework.
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648. Drunken driving sentencing.
State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar, (2002) 3 SCC 738. Specific proof for rash driving.
State of AP v. K. Rangappa, (2009) SC. Application in epidemic contexts.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. Framework for professional criminal negligence.
Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 205. Dangerous substances broad interpretation.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. Environmental framework for pollution offences.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463. Environmental pollution and criminal law.
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1. Framework for decency provisions.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1. Right to die with dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XV of the BNS?

Chapter XV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains twenty-eight provisions on offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals (Sections 270 to 297). The chapter addresses public nuisance, infectious diseases, food and drug adulteration, water and air pollution, rash driving and navigation, negligent conduct with dangerous substances (poison, fire, explosives, machinery, buildings, animals), obscenity, and lottery. Punishments are generally modest, reflecting the offences' focus on general public welfare rather than specific individual harm.

What is Section 281 BNS?

Section 281 BNS (formerly Section 279 IPC) is one of the most frequently invoked provisions of Chapter XV, applied in road accident cases. It punishes driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Where the rash driving causes death, Section 106 BNS (causing death by negligence) applies with significantly higher punishment. Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra addresses sentencing for drunken driving.

What is Section 294 BNS on obscenity?

Section 294 BNS (formerly Section 292 IPC) defines obscenity as material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or has the effect of tending to deprave and corrupt those likely to see it. The section criminalises sale, distribution, public exhibition, or possession for sale of obscene material. Punishment: first conviction up to two years and fine of five thousand rupees; subsequent conviction up to five years and fine of ten thousand rupees. The judicial test moved from Hicklin (Ranjit Udeshi, 1965) to community standards (Aveek Sarkar, 2014).

What is the current test for obscenity in India?

The current test is the community standards test articulated in Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257. The Supreme Court moved from the older Hicklin test (Ranjit Udeshi, 1965) to a modernised test focused on contemporary community standards. The court asks whether the material appeals to prurient interest as a whole, considers the context, artistic or educational merit, and applies contemporary standards. The Aveek Sarkar test has since guided obscenity prosecutions, allowing greater artistic and educational freedom while continuing to prohibit genuinely obscene material.

What is Section 272 BNS?

Section 272 BNS (formerly Section 270 IPC) punishes malignant acts likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both. The distinction from Section 271 (negligent acts) is the mens rea: Section 271 requires negligence, while Section 272 requires malignancy (deliberate wrongdoing). Both provisions received particular attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts have applied them to deliberate violation of quarantine, knowingly infecting others, and similar conduct.

What are Sections 274 to 278 BNS on food and drug adulteration?

Section 274 BNS punishes adulteration of food or drink intended for sale. Section 275 punishes selling noxious food or drink. Section 276 punishes adulteration of drugs. Section 277 punishes sale of adulterated drugs. Section 278 punishes selling a drug as a different drug or preparation. Punishments range from six months to one year. These provisions operate alongside the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for food) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for drugs), which provide the comprehensive regulatory frameworks.