Section 273 punishes a person who knowingly disobeys a rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine, for regulating the intercourse of such transport while it is in quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places. The punishment is imprisonment of up to six months, or fine, or both. It is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s version of IPC Section 271, and it speaks of a “mode of transport” where the IPC spoke of a “vessel”.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 273 descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860. The concordance table prints no change tag against this row, but a word-by-word comparison of the two texts shows differences in wording, so this page marks Section 273 as Substantively changed:
| BNS 273 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 273 | Disobedience to quarantine rule | S.271 “Disobedience to quarantine rule” | Substantively changed |
The punishment is the same in both Acts: imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. A word-by-word comparison of the two texts, run by program with every differing span examined (and the printed IPC page viewed as an image), shows these differences in the description of the offence. (i) Where IPC Section 271 speaks of a rule “for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine”, BNS Section 273 speaks of a rule “for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine”. (ii) Where the IPC continues “or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, for regulating the intercourse between places”, the BNS reads “or for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse between places”; so the words “with the shore or with other vessels,” are not carried over, and the third kind of rule is joined by “or” where the IPC joins it with a comma. (iii) The IPC describes the rule as “made and promulgated” by the Government, while the BNS says only “made by the Government”, so the words “and promulgated” are not carried over. Two features of the printed IPC page are not differences in wording: the IPC copy prints footnote markers (2*, 3*, 4*) around the words “by the Government”, the corresponding footnotes 2 to 4 printed on that page being amendment notes on that phrase, and it prints a letter-space in the word “rule” (“rul e”). Apart from these points, the section number and the marginal heading, no other word or punctuation mark differs. In the Sanhita, “vessel” is defined in Section 2(32) as anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property, whereas “mode of transport” is not defined in Section 2; the change of expression is recorded here as it stands in the two texts.
Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 273 punishes disobedience of a quarantine rule made by the Government. Its ingredients are three. First, the offender must knowingly disobey; the Sanhita does not define “knowingly” in Section 2, and in ordinary usage the word points to awareness that the rule exists and is being disobeyed. Second, what is disobeyed must be a rule made by the Government; Section 2(12) defines “Government” as the Central Government or a State Government. Third, the rule must be of one of three kinds, joined by “or”: a rule (a) for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine; (b) for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine; or (c) for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places. The section does not say under which law such a rule is to be made, and this page does not go beyond its words on that point.
The expressions “mode of transport”, “quarantine” and “infectious disease” are not defined in Section 2. In ordinary usage, a mode of transport is not confined to craft that travel by water. That is the change from the old IPC text, which spoke of a “vessel”, a word the Sanhita defines in Section 2(32) as anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property. The first two kinds of rule concern a mode of transport; the third is framed by reference to places, namely those where an infectious disease prevails and other places. Nothing in the words of the section makes the actual spread of a disease an ingredient of the offence: what is punished is the knowing disobedience of a rule of one of these three kinds.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or both. “Either description” refers to the two descriptions of imprisonment listed in Section 4(c), rigorous (with hard labour) and simple. The section states no amount for the fine, and Section 8(1) provides that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. The court may therefore impose imprisonment, or fine, or both. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is non-cognizable (under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and under BNSS Section 174(2) no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial), bailable (BNSS Section 478 applies to a person other than one accused of a non-bailable offence and provides that, if he is prepared to give bail, he “shall be released on bail”), triable by any Magistrate, and not in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359 (and Section 359(9) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that Section). Do not confuse Section 273 with Sections 271 and 272, which punish doing an act likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life (unlawfully or negligently in Section 271, malignantly in Section 272) and each carry their own mental element, or with Section 223, which punishes disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate it. Section 273 is framed around a rule made by the Government and the three kinds of quarantine rule described above.
Three kinds, joined by “or” in the section: a rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine; a rule for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine; and a rule for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places. Disobeying a Government rule of any other kind is not what this section describes.
The words of the section do not make the spread of infection an ingredient. What it requires is that the person knowingly disobeys a rule of one of the three kinds. Sections 271 and 272 have their own words about acts likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. Under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and under BNSS Section 174(2) no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Because it is bailable, BNSS Section 478 applies: a person who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”. The offence is not in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
The section says “or with fine” and states no amount. Section 8(1) of the Sanhita provides that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. The fine is an alternative to imprisonment, or may be imposed together with it, because the section says “or with fine, or with both”.
The punishment is unchanged. The differences are in wording: the BNS speaks of a “mode of transport” where the IPC spoke of a “vessel”; the words “with the shore or with other vessels” are not carried over; and the words “and promulgated” are not carried over. These are recorded in the comparison above.