2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17630
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Kayethi Balaraju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.21899 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri T.V. Ramana Rao
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Assistant Government Pleader for Home
The court found that an Executive Magistrate's order under Section 163 of the BNSS must include sufficient grounds for danger or nuisance, which were absent in this case.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 163 - Order issued by Executive Magistrate prohibiting petitioner from making public statements deemed defamatory or unrest inciting - Issuance of order required grounds of danger or nuisance which were lacking in the impugned order - The order was set aside with liberty to initiate action afresh. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Procedure - Executive Magistrate’s order must state material facts and comply with statutory requirements - Lack of required legal foundations renders order invalid. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
This writ petition challenges an order under Section 163 of the BNSS prohibiting defamatory public statements against public servants, issued by the Executive Magistrate without sufficient grounds for such action.
Findings of Court:
The Executive Magistrate did not establish requisite grounds for issuing the order under Section 163, thus violating procedural requirements.
Result: The impugned order was set aside but allowed fresh action under prescribed procedures.
ORDER
Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents respectively.
2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by respondent No.7 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”). Respondent No.7 has issued the aforesaid order in exercise of powers under Section 163 of the BNSS prohibiting the petitioner from making, publishing or disseminating any public statement, video, message, or written communication, whether in print, digital, or oral form that is defamatory, derogatory or provocative in nature against any public servant including respondent No.7, or that may incite unrest or disturb public peace, until further orders. It is also further stated that such order comes into force with immediate effect and remain valid for a period of (30) days unless withdrawn or modified earlier. Violation of the said order shall attract penal consequences under applicable provisions of the BNSS and other relevant laws. 3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that respondent No.7 did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 163 of the BNSS while passing the impugned order.
4. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract Section 163 of the BNSS , which reads as under: “ Section 163 : POWER TO ISSUE ORDER IN URGENT CASES OF NUISANCE OR APPREHENDED DANGER:
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 153, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section by himself or any Magistrate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before