The Andhra Pradesh High Court has asked the Union government to respond to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 20(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers prosecution officials to review police chargesheets [Keyur Akkiraju vs. Union of India & Ors.]

A bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Raghunandan Rao issued notice on the plea on Friday.

The plea questions Section 20(8) of the BNSS, which authorises Deputy Directors of Prosecution to “examine and scrutinize” police reports in cases where the prescribed punishment ranges between seven and ten years.

It contends that this mandate blurs the well-established separation between investigation and prosecution.

According to the petition, the Investigating Officer alone is legally empowered to conduct and conclude criminal investigations, including the filing of a final report or chargesheet before the magistrate. Allowing prosecution officials, who may be advocates or former judges but not trained investigators, to review and potentially interfere with these reports amounts to creating a “super police,”.

The petition further argues that the provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification. While Section 20(7) and Section 20(9) of the BNSS specify monitoring responsibilities for prosecution officials based on the severity of punishment, only Section 20(8) authorises scrutiny of police reports. The petitioner claims this additional power has no rational nexus with the stated objective of ensuring “expeditious disposal” of cases.

Concerns have also been also raised over the vagueness of the terms “examine and scrutinize.” The petition states that such undefined discretion risks arbitrary interference in investigations thereby, undermining the right to a free and fair probe protected under Article 21.

The plea stresses that investigation into a crime is not complete until the filing of the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Any intrusion at this stage, it argues, compromises both the statutory role of the police and the rights of the accused.

The petition also points out that Section 20(2) of the BNSS allows advocates with 15 years’ experience or sitting and former sessions judges to be appointed as Deputy Directors of Prosecution. According to the petitioner, neither category has investigative training, making such interference all the more problematic.

The case will next be heard after the Centre submits its response.