Back
Directs Removal of BNSS Prohibitory Board Outside Its Premises
The has directed the authorities to take down a board notifying the imposition of in the area around the Supreme Court. The direction, issued during a hearing in the CEC protest matter, underscores that executive action must not obstruct , including to any court of law. A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order after questioned whether the Chief Justice of India had been consulted before the board was installed.
A Prohibitory Board at the Court's Doorstep
At the start of the hearing, the , through its President , submitted that the lawyers' body had not been informed about the imposition of Section 163 prohibition around the Supreme Court. The submission prompted Justice Bagchi to observe, in a lighter vein, that if the was not properly published, it would be a good ground to quash it.
Shortly thereafter, Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised a pointed query before the respondents, including
:
"Did you take permission from the Chief Justice of India [for uploading the board on imposition of S.163]?"
He described the act of imposing Section 163 BNSS outside the Supreme Court and hoisting a board to that effect as "shocking". In his submission, permission ought to have been obtained from the
at the Supreme Court before such a prohibition was imposed.
The Court's Direction
After hearing the parties, the Bench directed the authorities to take down the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 of BNSS in the area around the Supreme Court, if not already done, to ensure there is no apprehension regarding , including to any court of law. The order did not merely dispose of a factual grievance; it also set a cautionary marker for enforcing public order measures near judicial institutions.
Understanding Section 163 BNSS
, is the statutory successor to . It empowers District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and other specially empowered Executive Magistrates to pass urgent orders in cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. Such orders may direct a person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain measures with respect to property, where the magistrate considers that the direction is likely to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury, danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray. The provision is often invoked to impose restrictions on assembly or movement in a particular area.
However, the exercise of such power is not exempt from procedural discipline. The provision itself, read with the BNSS's general scheme, requires that the order be communicated or published so that the persons affected know of its existence and can challenge it. The Supreme Court's oral observations in the present case made this point explicitly: a that is not properly published could be vulnerable to .
The Question
Gopal Sankaranarayanan's core grievance was that, within the precincts of the Supreme Court, the for any administrative order is the Chief Justice of India. Imposing a and displaying a board outside the Court without the CJI's permission, he argued, amounted to an executive intrusion into the judicial domain. The Bench did not expand upon this argument in the reported transcript, but its direction to remove the board suggests that the Court viewed the imposition as at least incompatible with the orderly administration of justice.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
The development is significant for lawyers and litigants for several reasons. First, it signals that authorities cannot treat the area around court premises as an ordinary public space when issuing prohibitory orders. Any restriction imposed in the vicinity of a court must take into account the need for unimpeded to the court. Second, it reaffirms that objections to such orders can be raised not only on merits but also on the manner of their publication. If a is not brought to the notice of the affected public, including the Bar, it loses much of its legitimacy. Third, the Court's insistence on the being approached may have a on arbitrary exercise of powers under Section 163 BNSS in similar contexts.
SCAORA's submission that the lawyers' body was not informed also highlights the importance of prior consultation with institutional stakeholders before restrictions are clamped around court buildings. Bar associations are not just users of court facilities; they are an essential part of the justice delivery system. Their exclusion from the process would undermine the transparency of such orders.
as a Guiding Principle
At the heart of the Court's direction lies the principle that
is not a matter of executive convenience. Every court of law must be physically reachable to those who seek legal remedies, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and members of the public. A prohibitory board at the entrance of the Supreme Court, however well-intentioned, could create a perception that entry to the court is conditional or subject to police discretion. The Bench's reference to
"apprehension regarding
"
recognises that the mere appearance of obstruction is as damaging as actual obstruction.
While the order was limited to the specific board in question, its reasoning carries a wider message for all judicial institutions. District courts, high courts, tribunals and other adjudicatory forums are all entitled to the same protection from .
Conclusion
The immediate result of the hearing is clear: the board, if not already taken down, must be removed. But the longer-term impact lies in the legal principles that emerged from the brief exchange. A under Section 163 BNSS cannot be used to wall off a court. It must be issued by the proper authority, published adequately, and never allowed to interfere with the constitutional promise of justice. The Supreme Court's direction in the CEC protest matter serves as a reminder that , and courts will not permit procedural shortcuts to cloud the right to be heard.
