Sections 268, 290–291 IPC vs Sections 270, 292–293 BNS — Public Nuisance

In India, Sections 270, 292 and 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the public-nuisance provisions in Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from 1 July 2024. The definition is unchanged in substance; the residual fine rises from ₹200 to ₹1,000, and continuing a nuisance now carries a fine capped at ₹5,000.

At a glance

With every "Ditto" traced, the CrPC First Schedule classified Section 290 IPC as non-cognizable and Section 291 IPC as cognizable, both bailable and triable by any Magistrate — the same as the BNSS. Neither offence is compoundable under Section 320 CrPC or Section 359 BNSS.

The specific public-health and public-safety offences between these sections — Sections 269 to 289 IPC, now Sections 271 to 291 BNS — have their own pages (see Related).

What changed

• Minor edit — Section 270 (IPC 268): the definition is word for word the same, but the second paragraph of Section 268 ("A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.") becomes the tail of the single sentence: "... 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."
• Modified — Section 292 (IPC 290): "fine which may extend to two hundred rupees" becomes "one thousand rupees". "not otherwise punishable by this Code," becomes "not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita" (the comma is dropped).
• Modified — Section 293 (IPC 291): "or with fine, or with both" becomes "or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both". Section 63 IPC — carried into Section 8(1) BNS — makes a fine with no stated sum "unlimited, but shall not be excessive", so the IPC fine for continuing a nuisance had no fixed cap; the BNS fine now does. Simple imprisonment up to six months is unchanged.
• Minor edit — procedure (BNSS 162): Section 143 CrPC let a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or empowered Executive Magistrate order a person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance "as defined in the Indian Penal Code". Section 162 BNSS adds a "Deputy Commissioner of Police empowered by the State Government or the District Magistrate" and refers to public nuisance "as defined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 268 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

... 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.

Extract, Section 270 BNS:

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.

Extract, Sections 292 and 293 BNS:

292. Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

293. Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

How it works

The definition (Section 270) has two alternative limbs:

1. an act or 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
2. an act or illegal omission which "must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right".

The harm must be common — to the public or to people in the vicinity generally. The last clause removes a defence: that the nuisance "causes some convenience or advantage" does not excuse it.

The residual offence (Section 292) applies only where the public nuisance is "not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita". If the conduct falls within a specific offence — spreading infection (Section 271), fouling water (Section 279), obstruction of a public way (Section 285), obscene acts (Section 296) and others — that section applies, not Section 292 — a reading of the words "not otherwise punishable".

Continuance (Section 293) needs three things: (1) a public nuisance; (2) an injunction not to repeat or continue it, issued by a public servant "who has lawful authority to issue such injunction"; and (3) repetition or continuance after the injunction. On a reading of the text, an order under Section 162 BNSS (Magistrate or empowered Deputy Commissioner of Police directing a person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance) is one source of such an injunction; the section does not list the sources.

Magisterial remedies alongside the offences: Section 152 BNSS, like Section 133 CrPC, lets a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or specially empowered Executive Magistrate make a conditional order — among other cases, to remove "any unlawful obstruction or nuisance" from a public place or way, or to regulate a trade "injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community". Section 161 BNSS, like Section 142 CrPC, allows an injunction pending inquiry where immediate measures are needed.

What this means in practice

For residents and complainants

• There are three routes: prosecution under the BNS nuisance offences; a conditional order from the Executive Magistrate under Section 152 BNSS; and remedies under special or local laws. Suhelkhan (below) set out the same three criminal routes under the IPC and CrPC.
• Under the BNSS First Schedule, Section 292 is non-cognizable, while Section 293 (continuing after an injunction) is cognizable.

For the accused and defence advocates

• An FIR citing only Section 270 BNS (or Section 268 IPC) names a definition, not an offence (Vinod Dua).
• For Section 292, the allegations must show a common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in the vicinity, or interference with a public right; Manchu Mohan Babu quashed a Section 290 IPC prosecution over a rally where the FIR and chargesheet disclosed none of these.
• For Section 293, the prosecution must show an injunction by a public servant with "lawful authority to issue such injunction", and repetition or continuance after it.

For municipal bodies, businesses and event organisers

• The "convenience or advantage" clause means that a public benefit from the activity is not a defence to the definition.
• An order under Section 162 BNSS may now come from an empowered Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as from an Executive Magistrate.

Judgments that still matter

Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors., [2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071 — 3 June 2021. Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran JJ. considered a writ petition by a journalist to quash an FIR registered under Sections 124A, 268, 501 and 505 IPC over statements in an online show. The Court said that Section 268 IPC "is nothing but the definition of 'Public Nuisance' and is not a penal provision in itself which prescribes any punishment", and noted that it was not the respondents' case that any penal provision involving public nuisance was attracted (para 46). It concluded that none of the offences in the FIR was made out (para 47), quashed the FIR, rejected the prayer that no FIR be registered against a media person of at least ten years' standing unless cleared by a proposed committee (para 68), and allowed the writ petition to that extent (para 69). Section 270 BNS is likewise a definition with no punishment.

Suhelkhan Khudyarkhan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1142 — 15 April 2009. A three-Judge Bench (Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta and P. Sathasivam JJ.), in an appeal against an order under Section 133 CrPC to remove a shop, explained that public nuisance "as defined in Section 268" IPC is "an offence against the public", distinguished it from private nuisance, which affects individuals, and identified three criminal-law remedies: prosecution under Chapter XIV of the IPC, summary proceedings under Sections 133 to 144 CrPC, and remedies under special or local laws (para 11). It found no infirmity in the High Court's order directing removal of the encroachment and disposed of the appeal (paras 16–17). Section 270 BNS repeats the definition, and Section 152 BNSS repeats the opening of Section 133(1) CrPC.

Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1969 (2025 INSC 916) — 31 July 2025. B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan JJ. quashed a prosecution under Sections 290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 arising from a 2019 rally and dharna alleged to have obstructed traffic. Reading the FIR and chargesheet as they stood, the Court held that they did not disclose any act or illegal omission "that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights" (para 18), held that the High Court erred in refusing to quash (para 19), and quashed the FIR and proceedings (para 21). The case applied the IPC; the ingredients it tested are the words of Section 268 IPC that Section 270 BNS repeats.

No Supreme Court judgment applying Sections 270, 292 or 293 BNS was found in the corpus searched for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS preserves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that text, a nuisance before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 290 and 291 IPC. Proceedings pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time of the offence; on a reading of that Article, the ₹1,000 fine in Section 292 BNS cannot be imposed for conduct before 1 July 2024. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 268 IPC? Section 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 268 IPC. It defines public nuisance in the same words: an act or illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. The closing rule that a common nuisance is not excused because it causes some convenience or advantage is now joined to the definition by "but".

Is Section 270 BNS itself a punishable offence? Section 270 BNS, like Section 268 IPC, defines public nuisance and prescribes no punishment. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, the Supreme Court described Section 268 IPC as "nothing but the definition" of public nuisance and "not a penal provision in itself". Punishment comes from Section 292 BNS (residual) or from a specific section in Chapter XV, such as Sections 271 to 291 BNS.

What is the punishment for public nuisance under the BNS? Under Section 292 BNS, whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by the Sanhita is punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. Section 290 IPC capped the fine at two hundred rupees. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate.

What happens if a person continues a nuisance after being told to stop? Section 293 BNS punishes whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance after being enjoined not to do so by a public servant who has lawful authority to issue such an injunction. The punishment is simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. The offence is cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate.

Is the fine for continuing a nuisance higher or lower under the BNS? It is now capped. Section 291 IPC provided for "fine" without a sum, and Section 63 IPC made such a fine unlimited but not excessive. Section 293 BNS says "fine which may extend to five thousand rupees", so the fine can no longer exceed five thousand rupees. Simple imprisonment up to six months is unchanged.

Can a Magistrate order a public nuisance to be removed? Yes. Section 152 BNSS, like Section 133 CrPC, lets a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or a specially empowered Executive Magistrate make a conditional order to remove an unlawful obstruction or nuisance from a public place or way, among other cases. Section 162 BNSS lets a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, an empowered Executive Magistrate or, newly, a Deputy Commissioner of Police order a person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance as defined in the BNS.

Which law applies to a nuisance committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to continue as if it had not been repealed, so, on a reading of that text, a nuisance before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 290 and 291 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law then in force; on a reading of that Article, the ₹1,000 fine in Section 292 BNS cannot be imposed for earlier conduct.

Related

• Public health and adulteration: IPC 269-278 vs BNS 271-280
• Public safety and negligent conduct: IPC 280-289 vs BNS 282-291
• Obscene acts: IPC 294 vs BNS 296
• Prohibitory orders: Section 144 CrPC now BNSS 163
• False information, obstruction and disobedience: IPC 182-188
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• IPC to BNS master table
• Sections 133–143 CrPC vs Sections 152–162 BNSS — Magistrate's Orders for Removal of Public Nuisance

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 8(1), 270, 292, 293 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 63, 268, 290 and 291.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 152, 161, 162, 359 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 292 and 293 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 133, 142, 143 and 320, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 290 and 291 IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021_12_1071_1177_EN.md); Suhelkhan Khudyarkhan v. State of Maharashtra (2009_5_1142_1152_EN.md); Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025_7_1969_1979_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.