KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 293: Continuance of Nuisance After Injunction to Discontinue

Introduction

Section 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the repetition or continuation of a public nuisance after a lawful injunction has already been issued directing the offender not to repeat or continue that nuisance.

The section therefore addresses a situation more serious than merely committing a public nuisance. The offender has already been directed by a legally authorised public servant to stop the nuisance, but nevertheless:

• Repeats it; or
• Continues it.

The essence of Section 293 is therefore the deliberate continuation or repetition of a public nuisance despite an existing lawful direction to discontinue it.

Basic Formula

Public nuisance + lawful injunction + repetition/continuation despite injunction = Section 293

Q1. What does Section 293 BNS provide?

Answer:

Section 293 provides that whoever:

• Repeats; or
• Continues

a public nuisance, after having been enjoined by a public servant possessing lawful authority to issue such an injunction not to repeat or continue that nuisance, is punishable under this section.

The punishment may extend to:

• Simple imprisonment up to six months; or
• Fine up to ₹5,000; or
• Both.

Q2. What is the object of Section 293?

Answer:

The object is to ensure that a person who has been lawfully directed to discontinue a public nuisance actually complies with that direction.

The section therefore protects two related interests:

1.     The public against the continued nuisance; and

2.     The effectiveness of a lawful injunction issued by an authorised public servant.

It is the continued or repeated nuisance after the injunction that attracts Section 293.

Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 293 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 293 BNS → Section 291 IPC

The language of the provision remains unchanged.

However, the BNS expressly specifies a maximum fine of:

₹5,000

Q4. What are the essential ingredients of Section 293?

Answer:

The essential ingredients may be stated as follows:

1.     There must be a public nuisance.

2.     A public servant must issue an injunction against its repetition or continuation.

3.     The public servant must have lawful authority to issue that injunction.

4.     The accused must have been enjoined not to repeat or continue the nuisance.

5.     Despite the injunction, the accused:

o    Repeats; or

o    Continues the public nuisance.

Memory Formula

NUISANCE + LAWFUL INJUNCTION + DISOBEDIENCE BY REPEATING/CONTINUING = SECTION 293

Q5. What is the foundation of an offence under Section 293?

Answer:

The foundation is the existence of a public nuisance.

Section 293 does not deal with every type of prohibited conduct or every breach of an administrative direction.

The underlying conduct must amount to a public nuisance.

Q6. Is the first commission of a public nuisance itself sufficient for Section 293?

Answer:

No.

Section 293 requires something additional.

The sequence contemplated by the provision is:

First: A public nuisance exists.

Second: A lawfully authorised public servant directs the person not to repeat or continue it.

Third: The person nevertheless repeats or continues it.

Therefore, the provision specifically addresses conduct after the injunction.

Q7. What does “repeats” mean under Section 293?

Answer:

“Repeats” refers to committing the public nuisance again after having been directed not to do so.

Simple Example

A creates a public nuisance.

A competent public servant orders A not to repeat it.

A stops temporarily but later creates the same nuisance again.

This may amount to repetition for the purposes of Section 293.

Q8. What does “continues” mean under Section 293?

Answer:

“Continues” means that the nuisance is allowed to persist even after the lawful direction to discontinue it.

Unlike repetition, there need not necessarily be a break followed by a fresh occurrence.

Simple Example

A is maintaining a continuing public nuisance.

A public servant lawfully directs A to discontinue it.

A ignores the direction and allows the nuisance to continue.

Section 293 may apply.

Q9. What is the difference between “repeat” and “continue”?

Answer:

The distinction can be remembered simply.

Repeat

The nuisance occurs, stops, and is later committed again despite the injunction.

Continue

The nuisance remains ongoing despite the direction to discontinue it.

Memory Rule

REPEAT = DO IT AGAIN

CONTINUE = KEEP DOING IT

Both are covered by Section 293.

Q10. What is meant by an “injunction” under Section 293?

Answer:

For purposes of the supplied provision, an injunction is a lawful direction requiring the person:

• Not to repeat; or
• Not to continue

the public nuisance.

It is therefore a formal legal restraint directed against continuation or repetition of the nuisance.

Q11. Who must issue the injunction?

Answer:

The injunction contemplated by Section 293 must be issued by a:

Public servant

But that fact alone is not enough.

The public servant must also possess lawful authority to issue the particular injunction.

Q12. Why is the expression “lawful authority” important?

Answer:

Because Section 293 does not apply merely because someone holding public office tells another person to stop certain conduct.

The person issuing the injunction must possess legal authority to make that direction.

Thus:

Public servant + lawful authority = valid statutory foundation

Q13. Would a direction from a person without lawful authority satisfy Section 293?

Answer:

Not on the wording supplied.

The statute specifically requires the injunction to have been issued by a public servant “who has lawful authority to issue such injunction.”

Therefore, lawful authority is an essential ingredient.

Q14. Why must the injunction precede the repetition or continuation?

Answer:

Because the aggravated character of the offence arises from the fact that the nuisance is repeated or continued after the person has been directed to discontinue it.

The chronological sequence is therefore important:

Stage 1

Public nuisance.

Stage 2

Lawful injunction.

Stage 3

Repetition or continuation.

Stage 4

Section 293 liability.

Q15. Give a simple example of Section 293 involving continuation.

Answer:

Suppose A is responsible for an activity amounting to a public nuisance.

A public servant having lawful authority issues an injunction requiring A to discontinue it.

A nevertheless keeps the nuisance operating.

The continued nuisance after the injunction may attract Section 293.

Q16. Give a simple example involving repetition.

Answer:

Suppose A creates a public nuisance at a particular location.

A competent public servant lawfully directs A not to repeat the nuisance.

A stops but later engages in the same nuisance again.

The repetition after the injunction may fall within Section 293.

Q17. What must the prosecution broadly establish?

Answer:

The prosecution must broadly establish that:

1.     A public nuisance existed.

2.     The accused was enjoined not to repeat or continue it.

3.     The injunction came from a public servant.

4.     That public servant possessed lawful authority to issue it.

5.     The accused subsequently repeated or continued the nuisance.

All these components are important.

Q18. Is every continuation of an inconvenience an offence under Section 293?

Answer:

No.

The underlying conduct must qualify as a public nuisance.

Section 293 should therefore not be reduced to a general offence of causing inconvenience.

The nature of the original conduct and the existence of the lawful injunction must first be established.

Q19. What makes Section 293 more serious than the underlying nuisance?

Answer:

The additional element is the existence of a prior lawful injunction.

The offender is no longer merely creating a nuisance. The offender continues or repeats it despite having been formally directed by an authorised public servant not to do so.

Thus, the structure is:

Public nuisance

+ prior lawful restraint

+ continued/repeated conduct

Q20. Is a private request to stop the nuisance enough?

Answer:

No, not by itself for Section 293.

A neighbour, customer or other private person may request that the conduct stop, but Section 293 specifically requires an injunction by a public servant having lawful authority to issue it.

Q21. Does the provision require a new kind of nuisance after the injunction?

Answer:

No.

The section refers to repeating or continuing “such nuisance.”

The focus is therefore on the public nuisance that the injunction was intended to stop.

Q22. Can the offence arise where the nuisance never stopped after the injunction?

Answer:

Yes.

That is precisely one of the situations covered by the word “continues.”

If the person receives the lawful injunction and nevertheless allows the public nuisance to remain ongoing, the continuation may attract Section 293.

Q23. Can the offence arise where the nuisance initially stops?

Answer:

Yes.

If the nuisance stops after the injunction but the offender subsequently starts it again, the conduct may amount to repetition.

Thus, Section 293 covers both:

Continuous disobedience and renewed disobedience.

Q24. What is the punishment under Section 293?

Answer:

The punishment is:

• Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months; or
• Fine which may extend to ₹5,000; or
• Both.

Punishment Formula

Simple imprisonment up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both

Q25. Is the imprisonment simple or rigorous?

Answer:

The section specifically prescribes:

Simple imprisonment

This should be remembered because the statutory wording expressly identifies the nature of imprisonment.

Exam Point

Section 293 = Simple imprisonment, not rigorous imprisonment

Q26. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

The maximum term is:

Six months

Q27. What is the maximum fine?

Answer:

The maximum fine under Section 293 BNS is:

₹5,000

Q28. What change was made to the fine under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the language remains unchanged, but a maximum fine of:

₹5,000

has now been specified.

This is the principal change identified in the supplied material.

Q29. Can imprisonment and fine both be imposed?

Answer:

Yes.

The punishment may consist of:

• Simple imprisonment alone;
• Fine alone; or
• Both.

The statutory wording is:

“or with both.”

Q30. What is the classification of Section 293?

Answer:

According to the supplied classification, Section 293 is:

• Cognizable
• Bailable
• Triable by any Magistrate

Classification Formula

Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate

Q31. What is the central distinction between the original nuisance and Section 293?

Answer:

The key distinction is the prior injunction.

A public nuisance may exist independently.

Section 293 arises when:

1.     A lawful injunction is issued against that nuisance; and

2.     The offender thereafter repeats or continues it.

Memory Rule

Nuisance alone ≠ Section 293

Nuisance after lawful injunction = Section 293

Q32. Why is the word “having been enjoined” important?

Answer:

It indicates that the lawful injunction must already have been directed against the person before the relevant repetition or continuation.

The provision therefore presupposes a prior legal direction to stop.

Q33. What are the three questions to ask in a problem involving Section 293?

Answer:

Ask:

Question 1 — Was there a public nuisance?

If no, Section 293 is not established.

Question 2 — Was there a lawful injunction by an authorised public servant?

If no, the special requirement of Section 293 is missing.

Question 3 — Was the nuisance repeated or continued after that injunction?

If yes, Section 293 may apply.

Q34. What is the most important chronological formula for Section 293?

Answer:

Remember the offence as a four-stage sequence:

PUBLIC NUISANCE

↓

LAWFUL INJUNCTION

↓

FAILURE TO COMPLY

↓

REPEAT OR CONTINUE NUISANCE

= SECTION 293

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Public Nuisance Must Exist

The underlying conduct must constitute a public nuisance.

A mere private inconvenience is not enough simply because somebody objects to it.

2. Injunction Must Be Issued

There must be a direction requiring the offender:

• Not to repeat; or
• Not to continue

the nuisance.

3. Injunction Must Come From a Public Servant

The direction contemplated by the section must be issued by a:

Public servant

4. Public Servant Must Have Lawful Authority

It is not enough that the person issuing the direction is a public servant.

That public servant must possess:

Lawful authority to issue such injunction.

5. Nuisance Must Be Repeated or Continued

After the injunction, the accused must:

Repeat

Commit the nuisance again.

or

Continue

Allow the existing nuisance to persist.

IPC Equivalent and BNS Change

IPC Equivalent

Section 293 BNS = Section 291 IPC

Language

According to the supplied comments, the language remains unchanged.

BNS Change

Maximum fine expressly specified at:

₹5,000

Punishment Study Note

Imprisonment

Simple imprisonment up to 6 months

Fine

Up to ₹5,000

Alternative

Both may be imposed.

Memory

6 MONTHS + ₹5,000

Classification Study Note

Section 293 is:

Cognizable

Bailable

Any Magistrate

Quick Revision Notes

Section

293 BNS

Title

Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue

IPC Equivalent

Section 291 IPC

Underlying Wrong

Public nuisance

Prior Requirement

Lawful injunction

Who Issues It?

Public servant with lawful authority

Conduct After Injunction

Repeat or continue nuisance

Punishment

Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both

Classification

Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Public nuisance alone

Not sufficient for Section 293.

There must be a prior lawful injunction.

Trap 2 — Any person's warning

Not sufficient.

The injunction must come from a public servant with lawful authority.

Trap 3 — Assuming only repetition is covered

Incorrect.

Both repetition and continuation are covered.

Trap 4 — Writing rigorous imprisonment

Incorrect.

The provision specifies simple imprisonment.

Trap 5 — Forgetting the sequence

The repetition or continuation must occur after the injunction.

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 293

PUBLIC NUISANCE

+

PUBLIC SERVANT

+

LAWFUL AUTHORITY

+

INJUNCTION TO STOP

+

REPEAT / CONTINUE

=

CONTINUANCE OF NUISANCE AFTER INJUNCTION

Key Takeaway

Section 293 BNS is directed not merely against a public nuisance but against the persistence of that nuisance after lawful intervention.

The offence requires a clear sequence:

First, there is a public nuisance.

Second, a public servant having lawful authority issues an injunction against its repetition or continuation.

Third, the offender disregards that injunction and repeats or continues the nuisance.

The section corresponds to Section 291 IPC, with the supplied comments identifying the specification of a maximum fine of ₹5,000 under the BNS.

For rapid revision:

293 = PUBLIC NUISANCE + LAWFUL INJUNCTION + REPEAT/CONTINUE

and:

Punishment = Simple imprisonment up to 6 months / ₹5,000 fine / both

Classification = Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate