Noida Biryani Case: Legal Debate Over 'Deadly Disease' Charge
Noida Biryani Case Sparks Legal Outrage Over Epidemic Law Use
In a bizarre legal twist, a Noida restaurant owner was arrested on April 7 under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly delivering chicken biryani instead of vegetarian biryani via a food delivery app. The charge—"negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life"—has left legal experts and the public baffled. How could a food mix-up trigger a law designed to combat deadly infections?
Legal Framework: BNS Sections 271 and 272 Explained
Sections 271 and 272 of the BNS mirror the IPC’s epidemic-era provisions. Section 271 penalizes negligent acts that risk spreading life-threatening diseases (punishable by up to six months in jail), while Section 272 applies to intentional violations. Both require proof that the accused knew their actions could cause infection.
Critics argue the law’s application here is tenuous. “There’s no scientific basis linking a non-veg food order to spreading deadly disease,” says Delhi-based lawyer Riya Sharma. “This risks trivializing laws meant for genuine public health threats.”
Historical Use of Epidemic Laws
During COVID-19, Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC (now BNS 271/272) were used to enforce lockdowns. Bollywood singer Kanika Kapoor was charged in 2020 for attending gatherings while COVID-positive. Similarly, TB notification failures by clinics have invoked these sections.
However, courts have narrowed their scope. In Shiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab (2008), the Madras HC ruled that food adulteration falls under food safety laws, not epidemic provisions. The Supreme Court, in Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (2003), barred Section 269 use in AIDS cases where parties consented to risks.
Why This Case Matters
Legal analysts warn that misapplying BNS Section 271 sets a dangerous precedent. “If a biryani mix-up becomes a ‘deadly disease’ case, what stops authorities from weaponizing these laws arbitrarily?” asks constitutional expert Dr. Anil Gupta.
The prosecution must prove two elements:
-
The act risked spreading a life-threatening disease.
-
The accused knew or should have known this risk.
With no evidence linking chicken biryani to lethal infection, the case leans heavily on subjective interpretation.
Public Reaction and Next Steps
The incident has gone viral, with social media users mocking the charges as “#BiryaniGate.” Food delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy have yet to comment, though industry insiders fear stricter liability clauses.
For now, the accused restaurant owner remains on bail. Legal experts predict the charges may not hold in court, but the case highlights urgent gaps in how India’s updated criminal code defines public health risks.
The Noida biryani case underscores the fine line between legal rigor and overreach. While BNS Sections 271/272 aim to safeguard public health, their misuse risks eroding trust in both law and governance. As courts weigh in, this could become a landmark case for redefining “negligent acts” in India’s legal landscape.
