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

M. M. SUNDRESH, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Satender Kumar Antil – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent


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

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, bot

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