SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1128

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Satender Kumar Antil – Petitioner
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation And Anr. – Respondents
IA No. 63691 OF 2025 in MA No. 2034 of 2022 In MA No. 1849 of 2021 In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Decided On ; 16-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Amicus Curie Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR Mr. Karl P Rustom Khan, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Osama, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Farman Ashraf, Adv. Mr. Abdul Ahad, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shrdha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Tacho Eru, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. R N Pareek, Adv. Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr Adv, A.A.G. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Mohd Ashaab, Adv. Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Kapil Katare, Adv. Ms. Rajnandani Kumari, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. R.basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Gunita Tandon, Adv. Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, Adv. Mr. R.n. Pareek, Adv. Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Mr. Sivabalan K., Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash Panwar, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ardhendu Pratap Swain, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Ravi Kumar S., Adv. Mr. R. Murugaiyan, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Aditya Jain, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Vishakha, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Police notice – Mode of service – Usage of electronic communication – Electronic communication is not a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of legislative intent.
(2) Summons issued by Court is a judicial act, whereas notice issued by Investigating Agency is an executive act – Procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into procedure prescribed for an executive act.
(3) Essence of Article 21 of Constitution imbues BNSS, 2023, which reflects laudable objective of safeguarding liberty of an individual, while facilitating investigation into and adjudication of offences.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 35 [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 41-A] – Police notice – Mode of service – Usage of electronic communication – Electronic communication is not a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of legislative intent – Introducing a procedure into Section 35 of BNSS, 2023, that has not been specifically provided for by Legislature, would be violative of its intent – Usage of electronic communication by Investigating Agency, has only been provided for effecting procedure under Sections 94 and 193 of BNSS, 2023 – Summons issued by Court under Sections 63 or 71 of BNSS, 2023, and notice issued by Investigating Agency under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 travel on different footings and cannot be equated with each other – Summons issued by Court is a judicial act, whereas notice issued by Investigating Agency is an executive act – Procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into procedure prescribed for an executive act. (Paras 39, 41 and 43)

(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 35 [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 41-A] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Police notice – Mode of service – Usage of electronic communication – Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically excluded service of a notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 from ambit of procedures permissible through electronic communication, that have been delineated under Section 530 of BNSS, 2023 – Protection of one’s liberty is a crucial aspect of right to life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21 of Constitution – Procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right, from encroachment by relevant Authority and any attempt to interpret provision as a mere procedural one, would amount to rewriting the provision itself – Service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right, as non-compliance with notice can have drastic effect on liberty of an individual – Essence of Article 21 of Constitution imbues BNSS, 2023, which reflects laudable objective of safeguarding liberty of an individual, while facilitating investigation into and adjudication of offences. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29)

(C) Interpretation Statute – Rule of Purposive Construction – While interpreting a statute, legislative intent is to be gathered from a plain and simple reading of language employed in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding objective behind the enactment. (Para 28)

Facts of the case:

Vide order dated 21.01.2025, this Court had directed all the States and Union Territories to issue a Standing Order to their respective police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under Cr.P.C., 1973/BNSS, 2023.

Issue before Court lies within a narrow compass – whether usage of electronic communication can also be extended to the procedure governing service of a notice, contemplated under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023.

Findings of Court:

IA No. 63691 of 2025 seeking modification of Order dated 21.01.2025, stands dismissed. As a consequence, order dated 21.01.2025, passed by this Court in MA No. 2034/2022 in MA No. 1849/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 1591/2021 stands confirmed.

Result : Application dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The procedure for serving a notice under the relevant legal framework, as outlined in the document, emphasizes that the mode of service must adhere to the specific provisions prescribed by law. The legislation explicitly restricts the use of electronic communication for service of notices issued by investigative authorities, such as notices under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. It states that electronic communication is not a valid mode of service for such notices, and any introduction of procedures not specifically provided by the legislature would contravene legislative intent and could violate fundamental rights, including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (!) (!) .

The law mandates that notices issued by investigative agencies under Section 35 must be served personally on the individual, ensuring direct and tangible communication. This requirement is rooted in the importance of safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring that the person is properly informed, which non-compliance with the prescribed mode could undermine (!) (!) .

While the legislation recognizes the use of electronic communication in certain judicial and procedural contexts—such as summons issued by courts and proceedings conducted in electronic mode—these provisions are specific to judicial acts or procedures that do not directly impinge on personal liberty. The procedural distinctions highlight that notices issued by investigative authorities, which can lead to arrest or deprivation of liberty, must be served in a manner that ensures the individual's rights are protected, primarily through personal service (!) (!) .

In summary, the procedure for serving a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, is to serve the notice personally, and electronic communication cannot be substituted for this purpose unless explicitly permitted by law. The legislative framework and the legislative intent underscore a cautious approach to electronic service in matters that directly affect individual liberty, emphasizing the importance of personal service to uphold constitutional rights.


ORDER

1. IA No. 63691 of 2025 has been filed by the State of Haryana seeking modification of the order dated 21.01.2025, passed by this Court in MA No. 2034/2022 in MA No. 1849/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 1591/2021.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court had directed all the States and Union Territories to issue a Standing Order to their respective police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC, 1973”)/Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS, 2023”) only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

3. It was held that service of the aforesaid notices through WhatsApp or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

4. It was also held that the Standing Orders must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

5. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/State of Haryana that a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 is only an information to the concerned person that he is required to join the investigation, and is not liable to be arrested at that time. Service of notice through the mode of electronic communication is required to ensure that the concerned person does not evade service of notice, and that precious resources of the State are not wasted.

6. Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023 has been brought to the attention of this Court. Placing reliance on the Proviso to Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023 he submitted that it permits the service of summons via the mode of electronic communication also, which would indicate that there is no bar in serving of summons through the mode of electronic communication. Therefore, when BNSS, 2023 statutorily recognizes electronic mode of service of summons issued by the Court, then the notice issued under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 should also be permitted to be served through the electronic mode.

7. Placing reliance upon Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that sub-section (1) provides for service of summons to witnesses through the mode of electronic communication. Even if one were to contend that proviso to Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023 permits service of summons via the mode of electronic communication only in those cases where the summons bear the image of a Court's seal, Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 is an overriding provision as there is no requirement of the Court's seal therein.

8. A careful reading of Section 64(2) and Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 would indicate that the former relates to system-generated summons, i.e., the e-Summons App, hence the requirement of the Court's seal to make them look authentic, whereas, the latter relates to physical summons duly signed, scanned and transmitted electronically, because of which there is no separate requirement of any watermark seal. A notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 falls within the same category as a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and therefore must be permitted to be transmitted electronically.

9. Placing reliance upon Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that the intent of the legislature is clear, relating to the use of technology in streamlining criminal proceedings. The aforesaid section lays down that trials, inquiries and proceedings may be held through the mode of electronic communication. Therefore, excluding service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 through the mode of electronic communication, would be an exception to the ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top