Section 270 states when a person is guilty of a public nuisance: by doing an act, or being guilty of an illegal omission, that causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or that must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. The section itself prescribes no punishment; punishment for a public nuisance is in other sections, such as Section 292. Its wording follows IPC Section 268, apart from one joining word.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and compared word by word, by a systematic text comparison, with the bare text of both Acts. Section 270 is marked Exact correspondence — it maps to one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the comparison found a single difference of wording, reported below:
| BNS 270 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 270 | Public nuisance | S.268 “Public nuisance” | Exact |
The comparison of IPC Section 268 with BNS Section 270 found one difference in the text of the section. IPC 268 ends its first sentence with a full stop after “to use any public right” and then begins a new sentence: “A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.” BNS 270 has no full stop there; it reads “…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.” The full stop and the capital “A” are therefore replaced by the word “but” and a lower-case “a”. This was confirmed on the printed page of each Act. Every other word and punctuation mark of the section is the same in both Acts, apart from the section number and the way the heading is printed. The concordance carries no “Change” tag for this row and this page labels it Exact; the joining word is set out here so that the two texts can be read against each other.
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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 270 is a definition of when a person is “guilty of a public nuisance”. It has three moving parts. First, the conduct: the person “does any act” or “is guilty of an illegal omission”. Second, the effect, which can arise in either of two ways joined by “or”: the conduct 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 it must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. Third, a closing rule: “a common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage”. The two effects are alternatives: the first speaks of what the conduct causes, and the second speaks of what it “must necessarily” cause and is framed around persons who may have occasion to use a public right.
Several of the section’s words are defined in Section 2 of the Sanhita, which applies “unless the context otherwise requires”. “Act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act (Section 2(1)); “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission (Section 2(25)); the word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action (Section 2(15)); “injury” means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property (Section 2(14)); and “public” includes any class of the public or any community (Section 2(27)). Notice that the word “illegal” stands before “omission” in this section and is not repeated before “act”. The words “common”, “danger”, “annoyance”, “obstruction”, “vicinity” and “public right” are not defined in Section 2, so they carry their ordinary meaning. The closing words speak of a “common nuisance”; the section does not define that phrase separately from “public nuisance”.
The section prescribes no punishment. The First Schedule to the BNSS has no row for Section 270, and the section appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359. Punishment for a public nuisance is provided elsewhere in the Sanhita, for example: Section 292 provides that whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by the Sanhita shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and Section 293 provides for simple imprisonment of up to six months, or fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both, for a person who repeats or continues a public nuisance after being enjoined by a public servant with lawful authority to issue the injunction. The BNSS also has provisions for Magistrates: Section 152 (Conditional order for removal of nuisance) and Section 162 (Magistrate may prohibit repetition or continuance of public nuisance), the latter speaking of a “public nuisance, as defined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”. Those are procedural provisions and sit beside this definition.
Section 270 also stands alongside other provisions in the same Chapter that deal with particular situations, such as Section 279 (fouling water of a public spring or reservoir), Section 280 (making the atmosphere noxious to health) and Section 285 (danger or obstruction in a public way or line of navigation). Each of those has its own wording and its own punishment, and Section 292 applies only to a public nuisance “not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita”; the text of Section 270 does not say how it interacts with them beyond that, and this page states no rule on it.
No. Section 270 states when a person is guilty of a public nuisance and prescribes no punishment; the First Schedule to the BNSS has no row for it. Punishment for a public nuisance is provided elsewhere in the Sanhita, for example in Section 292 (fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, for a public nuisance in a case not otherwise punishable by the Sanhita) and Section 293 (repeating or continuing a public nuisance after an injunction).
Both start with a person who does an act or is guilty of an illegal omission. The first way is that the conduct causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. The second way is that the conduct must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. The two are joined by “or”.
The section says not: “a common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage”.
Both. The section speaks of a person who “does any act” or “is guilty of an illegal omission”. The word “illegal” is placed before “omission” only, and Section 2(15) says that “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action.
The words are the same apart from one join. IPC Section 268 ends its first sentence after “any public right” and starts a new sentence with “A common nuisance is not excused…”; Section 270 reads “any public right but a common nuisance is not excused…”, with the full stop and capital “A” replaced by “but a”.