The Bombay High Court has raised serious questions about whether the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is being followed by police authorities in Maharashtra, seeking clear answers on its applicability while hearing two separate petitions. In both matters, the court expressed concern over what it described as routine disregard by police personnel for the procedures and timelines mandated under the new criminal law framework.
A bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and R.R. Bhonsale, in one of its orders, directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mumbai, to file a comprehensive affidavit clarifying whether the BNSS applies to the Mumbai Police. The bench stated that if the BNSS is indeed applicable, the police must explain why its officers are issuing summonses to citizens using procedures that are neither prescribed under the BNSS nor found in the police manual.
The court specifically questioned the legality of summonses being issued through what it termed “unknown procedures,” noting that such actions undermine the statutory safeguards provided under the BNSS. The judges emphasised that police authorities cannot invent or follow informal processes when a clear legal framework is in place.
In a separate order passed while hearing a petition related to the Kashimira police station in Mira Road, Thane, the same bench made strong observations about delays in preliminary enquiries. The court noted that it frequently encounters cases where police stations conduct preliminary enquiries at their own pace, ignoring the strict timelines mandated under the law.
Referring to Section 173(3)(i) of the BNSS, the bench reiterated that a preliminary enquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists must be completed within 14 days. However, the court observed that, in practice, such enquiries often continue for several months under the pretext of verification, in clear violation of statutory requirements.
The judges remarked that police officers were acting in “utter disregard” of the law and expressed concern that this could be due either to ignorance about the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or a deliberate decision not to comply with its mandatory provisions. The BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing parts of the earlier criminal procedure framework.
In the second petition, the court also directed the Union Home Department to clarify whether the BNSS applies to all police stations within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. If it does, the department was asked to explain why the law is not being implemented strictly and uniformly across Maharashtra.
One of the petitions was filed by businessman Mehul Jain through his advocates, who argued that despite receiving death threats, the police failed to register an FIR based on his complaint. Jain claimed he was instead summoned by the police under the guise of an enquiry, even though he was the complainant and not an accused, raising questions about procedural misuse.
The other petition was filed by builder Kundan Jaywant Patil, who alleged that police initiated an enquiry against him based on forged documents while failing to act on his complaint regarding attempts to illegally seize his ancestral property. He approached the High Court seeking directions for the registration of an FIR and proper adherence to legal procedure.
Through these observations and directions, the Bombay High Court has underscored the need for strict compliance with the BNSS, warning that failure to follow mandated procedures and timelines erodes public trust in law enforcement and undermines the rule of law.
