Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life
Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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 271, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 269 Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negligently doing any act known to be likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Dr. Subhash Chandra Swami vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in an FIR, the FIR cannot be quashed at the writ stage, even if the allegations are disputed or claimed to be baseless by the accused. However, the court may grant interim protection against arrest pending investigation if the nature of allegations and circumstances warrant such protection.
On this section: Sections cited in the FIR relating to negligence, adulteration of drugs, and criminal intimidation. The court examined whether these sections were prima facie applicable to the facts alleged.
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Rregulabanda Manikanta
Decided under Indian Penal Code 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who negligently keeps a commercial establishment open in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders during a COVID-19 pandemic, thereby creating a risk of spreading dangerous disease infection to the public, commits an offence under Section 269 IPC. Upon voluntary admission of guilt by such person, conviction is warranted, and a fine proportionate to the nature of the offence is an appropriate punishment.
On this section: Negligent act likely to spread infection of dangerous disease to life. Applied to the accused's act of keeping vegetable shop open during COVID-19 lockdown, which could spread coronavirus infection to customers and public.
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Thanki Srinivas
Decided under Indian Penal Code 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A voluntary and uncoerced admission of guilt by an accused person, when properly recorded after examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and after ensuring the accused understands the nature of accusation, is sufficient basis for conviction under Section 252 Cr.P.C without the necessity of adducing oral or documentary evidence. In cases of negligent acts likely to spread dangerous disease during public health emergencies (such as COVID-19 pandemic), operating commercial establishments in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders constitutes an offence under Section 269 IPC, and conviction with appropriate punishment is warranted to protect public health and enforce compliance with emergency regulations.
On this section: Negligent act likely to spread infection of dangerous disease. Applied to the accused's operation of fast food centre during COVID-19 lockdown, which was likely to spread coronavirus infection to the public.
-
S.I of police, Mandapeta Rural P.s vs Sanagala Srinu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused voluntarily admits guilt to charges of violating government orders and causing danger to human life, and presents mitigating circumstances such as being the sole breadwinner of dependent family members, the court may impose lenient sentences in the form of fines with imprisonment only in default, while declining to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act if the circumstances do not warrant full probation.
On this section: Negligence or wantonness with respect to act which may spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Applied to convict the accused for acting in manner endangering public health and safety.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 271
What have the courts held on Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Dr. Subhash Chandra Swami vs State of U.p. (27 Feb 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 269, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Sections cited in the FIR relating to negligence, adulteration of drugs, and criminal intimidation. The court examined whether these sections were prima facie applicable to the facts alleged. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2018 to 2021.
Is Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 271, section 271 BNS, section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 271 and 272 and bns 271 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dr. Subhash Chandra Swami vs State of U.p. (27 Feb 2018).
What should I read with Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 269 (Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 271, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.