World
India
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot use electronic means such as WhatsApp or emails to serve notices to accused individuals under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions allow for the issuance of notices to accused persons whose immediate arrest is deemed unnecessary, directing them to appear before law enforcement authorities.
The Bench, comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal, directed all states and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders to their police departments, ensuring adherence to the prescribed modes of service under the CrPC and BNSS. The apex court emphasized, “Service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic platforms cannot be recognized as a valid substitute for the methods explicitly outlined in the CrPC, 1973, or the BNSS, 2023.”
This directive came during the ongoing monitoring of the Satender Kumar Antil case, where the court had previously issued guidelines aimed at curbing unnecessary arrests of accused individuals. The case has since remained under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court to ensure compliance with its earlier orders.
Background of the Ruling
The court’s intervention followed reports that the Haryana government had permitted its police to serve Section 41A CrPC and Section 35 BNSS notices via electronic means, including WhatsApp and emails. This practice raised concerns about its validity and adherence to procedural law.
Specific Instructions to Law Enforcement
The court mandated that all states and Union Territories issue additional Standing Orders to their police departments. These orders should instruct officers to serve notices under Section 160 of CrPC/Section 179 of BNSS and Section 175 of CrPC/Section 195 of BNSS only through the methods prescribed in the respective statutes. The court’s clarification reinforces the principle that electronic modes cannot replace formal service procedures as established under existing legal frameworks.
Implications of the Decision
This ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding procedural sanctity and ensuring due process in criminal investigations. By rejecting electronic alternatives for notice service, the court has prioritized legal clarity and the rights of the accused, preventing potential misuse or ambiguities in the notice-serving process. This decision serves as a reminder for law enforcement agencies to adhere strictly to statutory requirements, ensuring procedural fairness in the criminal justice system.
