Question

Principle: Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance. A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.
Facts: 'A‘ a farmer having large farmlands burns crop residue (stubble) on his fields after harvesting the crop to make the field ready for next crop as this is the easy, fast and convenient method of making the field ready for next crop. His farmlands are adjoining a densely inhabited residential area and people pass through the smoke while travelling on the road adjoining his farmlands. The smoke caused by fire also enters the houses in the colony.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. A has not committed any offence since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person
• B. A has not committed any offence because he does not gain any advantage from persons living in the vicinity
• C. A has committed public nuisance
• D. A has not committed any offence because the alleged acts are done on the fields owned and used by him and acts are done without any intention to cause harm.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Public nuisance, as the principle defines it, turns on effect rather than on intent, ownership of the land, or personal gain. The test is whether the act causes, or is likely to cause, common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, and the principle goes further by saying even some advantage from the act does not excuse it.

Here, the smoke from A's stubble burning does not stay confined to his own fields, it spreads over the adjoining public road that people use to travel and drifts into houses in the nearby residential colony. That spread to a road and multiple homes is precisely a common annoyance affecting the public rather than any single individual.

None of the usual defences work against that test, not having named a specific victim, not personally profiting from the neighbours, owning the land where the fire was lit, or lacking any intent to harm, since the principle's own wording strips each of those away as a valid excuse for a nuisance that in fact reaches the public.

So the correct answer is A has committed public nuisance.

Answer 2

Asking what fact would need to be different for each option to hold shows exactly where three of the choices fail.

1. A has not committed any offence since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person: This would only work if the principle required a single identifiable victim, but it is written around common annoyance to the public, and the smoke reaching an entire road and colony already satisfies that broader test.
2. A has not committed any offence because he does not gain any advantage from persons living in the vicinity: This would only matter if gaining an advantage were required for liability, but the principle actually says a nuisance is not excused even where some advantage exists, so the direction of this option is reversed from what the rule says.
3. A has committed public nuisance: No change is needed, the smoke already spreads over the public road and into the houses exactly as the principle's definition of common injury or annoyance requires.
4. A has not committed any offence because the alleged acts are done on the fields owned and used by him and acts are done without any intention to cause harm: This would only work if the test were about where the act originated or what was intended, but the principle looks at the effect on the public, and that effect, smoke reaching public spaces, already exists regardless of ownership or intention.

Since the smoke's actual reach into public areas is already established and none of the three alternative conditions are what the principle actually tests, public nuisance is the option that needs no unstated fact to be true.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has committed public nuisance.