Bombay High Court miffed over "whims" of Police in implementing BNSS, seeks explanation from MHA

The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Maharashtra police and the state administration for not following the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when it comes to handling criminal cases.

The Court asked why the mandatory procedures under BNSS were being ignored despite the law having coming into force in July 2024.

BNSS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure and re‑organised investigation timelines, custody powers and enquiry processes, among other aspects of criminal procedure.

In at least three separate petitions, a bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale called upon the Union Home Ministry to clarify whether BNSS applies to police stations in Maharashtra.

Further, if it does, the bench directed the senior police officials in the State to explain why its provisions were not being implemented "strictly and sincerely".

It permitted adding the Union of India as a party to the case and asked them to clarify about the applicability of BNSS.

“Whether BNSS is applicable to all police stations within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and, if so, why it has not been followed strictly and sincerely,” the Court said.

In a case filed by Mehul Jain, the bench took exception to a communication issued by an Assistant Police Inspector of VP Road police station summoning Jain by citing an internal ‘Movement Register’ entry rather than any statutory power under BNSS.

The Court directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mumbai, to file an affidavit explaining whether BNSS is applicable to Mumbai Police and, if yes, why officers are “issuing summons to citizens under some unknown procedure not even defined in the Maharashtra police manual"

“We are regularly coming across with such sort of instances where the citizens of India are being summoned at police station by giving reference of ‘movement register’, which according to us prima facie is not proper,” the Court said.

It also questioned the police practice of conducting open-ended “preliminary enquiries” into complaints without adhering to the timeline laid down under Section 173(3)(i) of BNSS.

Section 173(3)(i) expressly authorises a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists and mandates that such an enquiry be completed “within a period of fourteen days” from the date of receipt of information.

In a petition filed by Kundan Jaywant Patil, the bench noted that despite this clear fourteen‑day limit, enquiries were being kept pending for months in utter disregard of law.

“We regularly come across with cases wherein the police personnel and/or Police Stations within the territorial jurisdiction of this court are conducting preliminary enquiries leisurely as per their own whims and caprices and in utter disregard to the mandate of law, Section 173(3)(i) of BNSS”, the Court recorded in the order.

The bench noted from the pattern of violations that either the police did not know about the enactment or they were deliberately not following the mandate provisions of law for reason best known to them.

Similarly, in the petition filed by one Ashwin Ashirvad Parmar arising from a complaint monitored by the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Tribe, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police with jurisdiction over the relevant police station to explain why the enquiry or investigation ordered by the Commission was not concluded within the mandated fourteen days under Section 173(3)(i) BNSS. 

[Read orders]