Blog

INTRODUCTION:

A conflict of interests has arisen in the ongoing debate between those who want to broaden the definition of public nuisance to include circumstances where they have personally suffered harm and those who want public nuisance actions to remain rooted in their historical context. This has led scholars to seek a middle ground and avoid a prescriptive definition of public nuisance. According to one argument, being a public nuisance is not and has never been a criminal offence.

Instead, it is seen as a way to protect larger public interests. Criminal charges may be brought against this mechanism under the authority of statutory bodies. Therefore, in terms of conceptual and historical foundations, the comparison between public nuisance and criminal law is more pertinent than that with tort law. Contrarily, opposing claims contend that public nuisance affects the welfare, comfort, and safety of the entire populace rather than just one person or a particular group. As a result, they make the case for the inclusion of tort law as a civil remedy.

NUISANCE:

In basic terms, we can define nuisance as the unauthorized disruption of an individual’s ability to use or take pleasure in their property. Any action that hinders aspects like well-being, safety, and comfort falls within the scope of the nuisance tort. Such actions might encompass odors, smoke, noise, gases, or disease-spreading microorganisms. Nuisance can be categorized into two types:

• Private Nuisance
• Public Nuisance

 

PRIVATE NUISANCE:

Private nuisance refers to a form of nuisance where one person’s ability to enjoy their property is encroached upon by another party. This can result in harm to another individual’s property or merely impede their property enjoyment. In contrast, private nuisance involves a person’s individual use and pleasure of their property being infringed, without affecting the entire community or the general public, as is the situation with public nuisance. In cases of private nuisance, the affected party can initiate a civil lawsuit to seek remedies.

PUBLIC NUISANCE:

Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the concept of public nuisance, defining it as follows: “An individual commits a public nuisance when they engage in any action or commit an unlawful omission that results in general harm, peril, or irritation to the public or to individuals who generally inhabit or possess property in the vicinity. This includes actions that inherently lead to injury, obstruction, risk, or annoyance for those who may need to exercise a public entitlement.”

Public nuisance, as suggested by its name, is a phenomenon that has an effect on society as a whole or on particular groups within it and violates the rights of its citizens, particularly those related to the use and enjoyment of their property. Public nuisances are actions that materially impair the security, satisfaction, or well-being of the general populace. “Sic uteret ut rem publicam non laedas,” which states that one should use their property without infringing upon or harming the rights of the public, is the foundation for this legal concept.

 

DIFFERENT CASE LAWS RELATING TO NUISANCE IN RELATION TO INDIA, UK AND USA:

 

• INDIA:

 

Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal[1]

 

Facts: The complainant, who was a medical practitioner and operated a clinic in his residing area, brought forth a legal suit against the defendant. This was due to the fact that in the vicinity, the defendant operated brick powdering mills. The plaintiff alleged that the emission of brick powder was causing environmental pollution and was infiltrating his clinic premises, resulting in discomfort to his patients. Additionally, the plaintiff pointed out the unauthorized use of a machine by the defendant, which had not been granted permission by the municipal board.

 

Issue: As the defendant argued that the bricks were consistently moistened before use to stop the release of dust, the issue of whether the defendant should be held liable for a public nuisance arose. The defendant further argued that the machine in question did not contribute to noise pollution.

 

The court found that the defendant’s mills’ dust emissions were making life difficult for the general public. This was obvious because people who were sitting outside had visible red dust on their clothing, which posed a health risk. As a result, the court mandated that the plaintiff receive special damages since his losses were more severe, particularly in terms of a decline in the number of patients at his clinic.

The concept of “substantial injury,” which does not require actual harm to occur, was also stressed by the court. Instead, proactive measures like obtaining compensation or obtaining injunctions to stop the nuisance could be taken.

 

• UK

 

Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd[2]

 

Facts: The quarry’s proprietor, identified as the defendant, employed blasting methods that generated substantial noise, a considerable amount of dust, and vibrations. These disruptions significantly disrupted the residents’ ability to enjoy their property. The plaintiff requested a court order to halt the ongoing nuisance. The defendant, however, contended that the liability should pertain to a private nuisance rather than a public one. This assertion was based on the argument that the harm inflicted was restricted to specific individuals in that vicinity, thereby suggesting that he should not be subject to an injunction that specifically addresses public nuisance.

 

Issue: The central question revolved around categorizing the defendant’s behavior as either a private or public nuisance. To elucidate, what precisely distinguishes a public nuisance from a private one, and at what point can we ascertain that a private nuisance has evolved into a public nuisance?

 

The detonations carried out by the defendant hold the potential to result in a public nuisance, justifying the possibility of issuing an injunction. While distinguishing between private and public nuisances is intricate, a public nuisance typically pertains to situations where it impairs the reasonable comfort or safety of a specific group. The composition of this group is contingent upon the particulars of each case. In essence, attempting to quantify a specific number of individuals to classify an issue as a public nuisance proves to be an impractical endeavor. The concept of public nuisance is inherently indiscriminate, not anticipating any individual to undertake the responsibility of curbing it. Instead, this responsibility rests upon the broader society, which was the underlying rationale in this case where the injunction was indeed granted.

 

• USA

Missouri v. Illinois & Sanitary District of Chicago[3]

 

Facts: The State of Missouri in the United States initiated legal action against the State of Illinois, alleging that the City of Chicago was committing a public nuisance by releasing sewage into the Mississippi River. In reality, the City of Chicago had redirected the flow of its rivers to prevent them from entering Lake Michigan, thereby directing pollution into the Mississippi River. The State of Missouri asserted that this alteration in the river’s flow had contaminated the river and led to outbreaks of typhoid among the residents in the affected area.

Issue: Whether the State of Illinois can be held accountable for creating a public nuisance through the disposal of sewage into the Mississippi River, which subsequently leads to the spread of typhoid among the local population.

 

Due to the problem of causation, the court rejected the nuisance complaint. Justice Holmes argued that the 350-mile distance between the disease discovered and the sewage disposal site made it impossible for a disease to spread. In addition, the state was unable to show that the river was a source of typhoid bacteria. Additionally, similar practises were used by businesses that were already established in Missouri. Because of this, the court concluded that a stronger demonstration of causation might produce a different result, but given the current situation, it decided in Illinois’ favour.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

All three jurisdictions require an interference that is substantial and unreasonable for a nuisance claim to succeed. England has a well-developed body of case law that provides detailed guidance on the elements of nuisance, while the US and India draw on common law principles with variations based on local statutes and precedents. The concept of public nuisance in India and the USA may have a broader scope and may include activities that affect the public at large, while in England, it may require a more direct interference with public resources or interests. Remedies for nuisance are similar across jurisdictions, with damages and injunctions being the primary options.

[1] AIR 1982 All 285

[2] 1957 2 QB 169

[3] 180 U.S. 208 (1901)