Section 91 — Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public
A public wrong harms everyone and so, often, no single person sues. Section 91 opens a representative remedy: for a public nuisance (or wrongful act) affecting the public, a suit for declaration and injunction may be brought by the Advocate-General, or by two or more persons with the court’s leave — and, since 1976, even without any special damage to them.
How to read Section 91
A public wrong, a public remedy
For a public nuisance or wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for declaration and injunction (or other appropriate relief) may be instituted.
Two routes to sue
(a) the Advocate-General; or (b) two or more persons with the court’s leave — and, since 1976, even without special damage to themselves.
It doesn’t shut other doors
Sub-section (2): § 91 is an extra remedy — it does not limit any right of suit that exists independently (e.g. a person who suffers special damage).
The bare Act
1, 2(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,—
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions.
1. The headings were substituted by Act 104 of 1976, s. 30 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977). 2. Sub-section (1) was substituted by the same Act — widening clause (b) by adding “even though no special damage”. Procedure: Order I, rule 8 (representative suits) where applicable.
Key terms decoded
An unlawful act or omission that injures or obstructs the public (or a class of the public) in the exercise of common rights — e.g. fouling a public water-source or blocking a highway.
§ 91 reaches both an actual and a threatened public injury — one need not wait for the harm to fall.
The usual reliefs: a declaration that the act is wrongful, and an injunction to stop or prevent it.
The court is not confined to declaration and injunction — it may grant whatever relief fits the circumstances.
The State’s senior law officer, who may bring the public-interest suit under (a) without the court’s leave.
The permission a private group of two or more must obtain before suing under (b).
Particular harm to the plaintiff beyond that suffered by the public generally. Since 1976, it is not required for the (b) route.
Any separate right to sue — e.g. of a person who does suffer special damage — survives untouched. § 91 only adds a remedy.
The picture — vindicating a public wrong
§ 91 lets a public wrong be challenged even by those who suffer no special harm — through the Advocate-General, or a group of two or more with the court’s leave — while leaving every independent right of suit intact.
Section 91, part by part
How the two sub-sections work as one body
An added remedy — not a substitute
For a public wrong, a suit for declaration + injunction may be brought by the Advocate-General, or by two or more with leave — since 1976, even with no special damage.
This remedy is additional — it leaves every independent right of suit fully intact.
What the 1976 amendment did
Act 104 of 1976, s. 30 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) — widening access
Connected provisions
Section 91 is the public-nuisances node of Part V — Special Proceedings (§§ 89–93). It is a representative public-interest remedy; it sits beside Order I, rule 8 (representative suits), follows the special case (§ 90) and precedes public charities (§ 92).