Public nuisance refers to acts that significantly interfere with the public’s rights, affecting the community or society at large. In India, Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides a legal framework for addressing such nuisances and other wrongful acts impacting the public. This section empowers individuals and authorities to seek judicial remedies to prevent or address actions detrimental to public welfare.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Section 91 of the CPC deals with public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public. It allows for the institution of suits in cases where such acts are committed or likely to be committed. The provision is as follows:

“(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,—

(a) by the Advocate-General, or

(b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.”

This provision enables legal action against activities that harm public rights, even if specific individuals do not suffer direct damage. It underscores the importance of protecting communal interests and maintaining public order.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept of public nuisance has its roots in common law, where it was recognized as an act affecting the public’s rights, such as obstructing a highway or polluting a river. In India, the codification of this principle in Section 91 of the CPC was influenced by the need to provide a statutory remedy for acts adversely affecting the public. This codification aimed to simplify the process of seeking redress for public nuisances, allowing collective action without the necessity of proving special damage.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Under Section 91, two primary entities can initiate a suit for public nuisance:

1. Advocate-General:
   The Advocate-General has the authority to file a suit without requiring any prior permission from the court.

2. Two or More Persons:
   Any two or more individuals can file a suit with the court’s permission, even if they have not suffered any special damage from the nuisance. This provision facilitates public-spirited individuals to take legal action in the interest of the community.

The procedure involves:

• Filing a Plaint:
  The plaintiffs must file a plaint detailing the nature of the public nuisance or wrongful act and the relief sought.
• Seeking Leave of the Court:
  If the suit is initiated by individuals (not the Advocate-General), they must obtain the court’s permission, demonstrating that the act in question affects or is likely to affect the public.
• Reliefs Available:
  The court may grant a declaration, injunction, or any other appropriate relief to prevent or address the nuisance.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS

Several landmark judgments have interpreted and applied Section 91 CPC:

1. Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal:
   In this case, the plaintiff, a doctor, operated a clinic adjacent to the defendant’s brick-powdering mill. The mill’s operations caused dust to enter the clinic, adversely affecting the health of patients. The court recognized this as a public nuisance and granted an injunction against the defendant.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India:
   The petitioner filed a writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the public nuisance caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga, aiming to protect the lives of people using the Ganga water. The Supreme Court entertained the petition as a PIL, emphasizing that the nuisance caused by the pollution was a public nuisance, widespread in range and indiscriminate in its effect, and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large.

3. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan:
   Residents of a locality filed a complaint against the municipality for failing to prevent open drains and public excretion, leading to health hazards. The Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the municipality to remove such public nuisances, emphasizing the role of public bodies in maintaining sanitation and public health.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, public nuisance is primarily addressed through criminal proceedings, and private individuals can initiate actions only if they have suffered special damage. In contrast, Section 91 of the Indian CPC allows individuals to file civil suits without proving special damage, provided they obtain the court’s permission. This reflects a more inclusive approach, enabling proactive public participation in addressing communal grievances.

DEFENCES / EXCEPTIONS / EXCEPTIONS TO DEFENCES

Defendants in a suit under Section 91 may raise the following defences:

• Statutory Authority:
  If the act causing the nuisance is authorized by a statute, it may serve as a valid defence.

• Absence of Public Impact:
  Arguing that the act does not affect the public at large but is a private nuisance affecting specific individuals.

However, mere authorization by law does not permit unnecessary or negligent harm to the public. The act must be performed with due regard to public rights and safety.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The application of Section 91 aligns with the broader legal principle of “ubi jus ibi remedium”, meaning “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” This doctrine ensures that legal avenues are available to address violations of public rights, reinforcing the rule of law and accountability.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

The maxim “salus populi suprema lex”, meaning “the welfare of the people is the supreme law,” underpins the rationale of Section 91. It emphasizes that the law prioritizes public welfare and provides mechanisms to address actions detrimental to societal interests.