Noida biryani case: the law against ‘spread of deadly disease’ that has been invoked

Spreading deadly infection

Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1870, have been identically reproduced as Sections 271 and 272 of the BNS. These punish acts that are “likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life”.

Section 271 of the BNS, which carries a maximum punishment of six months imprisonment, punishes those who “negligently” commit such acts. Section 272 punishes those who do so “malignantly”, implying that the accused intended to spread the infection. It carries a punishment of six months imprisonment. Both are bailable offences.

Under both provisions, the prosecution must establish that the infection is of a “disease dangerous to life” — ruling out non-lethal infections.

It must also prove that the accused knew or “had reason to believe” that their action, whether negligent or malignant, may cause an infection to spread.

With respect to the incident in Noida, it is unclear how delivering chicken biryani instead of vegetarian biryani can spread a “disease dangerous to life”.

Previous applications

These provisions were invoked frequently during the Covid-19 pandemic when several states used the threat of Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC to enforce lockdown orders. Among those who fell foul of such orders was Bollywood singer Kanika Kapoor, who was booked under Section 269 in Uttar Pradesh in 2020. She attended at least three gatherings in Lucknow before testing positive for Covid-19.

Another recent instance of these provisions being invoked was in March 2018, when the Health Ministry said that clinical establishments that fail to notify a tuberculosis patient to the nodal officer and local public health staff can be punished under Sections 269 and 270.

Courts have previously weighed in on how the provisions will apply, although they have limited themselves to deciding on such matters on a case-by-case basis — as opposed to laying down a test to apply across cases. In 1998, in the case of Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (2003), the Supreme Court held that Section 269 could not be invoked by one member of a married couple against another with AIDS if they “willingly” got married.

Courts have also dealt with possible overlaps with other laws. In the case of Shiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab (2008), the Madras High Court held that no criminal action can be taken against the sale of ‘adulterated paneer’ which does not meet the prescribed standards, as the issue would instead fall under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.