Noida biryani incident: the legal provision concerning the 'transmission of lethal diseases' that has been cited

In the Noida biryani incident, a restaurant owner was apprehended on Monday, April 7, after allegedly delivering chicken biryani to a customer who had ordered vegetarian biryani via a food delivery application.

An FIR was filed against the accused, citing the offense of “Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life” under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

Risk of Spreading Infection

Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1870, have been mirrored in Sections 271 and 272 of the BNS, which penalize actions that are “likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life.”

Section 271 of the BNS, which can result in a maximum sentence of six months in prison, penalizes individuals who commit such acts “negligently.” Section 272 addresses those who act “malignantly,” indicating an intention to spread the infection, and also carries a six-month imprisonment penalty. Both offenses are bailable.

For prosecution under these sections, it is necessary to demonstrate that the infection pertains to a “disease dangerous to life,” thereby excluding non-lethal infections. Additionally, it must be proven that the accused was aware or had reasonable grounds to believe that their actions, whether negligent or malignant, could lead to the spread of an infection.

In the case from Noida, it remains uncertain how the delivery of chicken biryani instead of vegetarian biryani could potentially lead to the spread of a “disease dangerous to life.”

Previous Instances

These legal provisions were frequently utilized during the Covid-19 pandemic, as various states invoked Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC to enforce lockdown measures. Notably, Bollywood singer Kanika Kapoor was charged under Section 269 in Uttar Pradesh in 2020 after attending multiple gatherings in Lucknow before testing positive for Covid-19.

A recent example of these provisions being utilized occurred in March 2018, when the Health Ministry announced that clinical establishments that neglect to inform the nodal officer and local public health personnel about a tuberculosis patient could face penalties under Sections 269 and 270.

Judicial bodies have previously addressed the application of these provisions, although their rulings have been limited to individual cases rather than establishing a universal standard. In the 1998 case of Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (2003), the Supreme Court determined that Section 269 could not be applied by one spouse against the other in a marriage where both partners willingly entered into the union, even if one was diagnosed with AIDS.

Additionally, courts have examined potential conflicts with other legislation. In the case of Shiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2008), the Madras High Court ruled that no criminal charges could be brought against the sale of ‘adulterated paneer’ that did not conform to the required standards, as this matter would instead be governed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954.