The Supreme Court of India has issued a directive prohibiting police from serving notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) via electronic means like WhatsApp, email, or SMS. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to legally established procedures for serving such notices to ensure fairness and compliance with the law.

This decision stemmed from the case Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, where concerns were raised about police deviating from prescribed procedures by using electronic means for notice delivery. The court, consisting of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, stressed that such modes are neither legally valid nor prescribed under CrPC or BNSS.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, serving as amicus curiae, brought this issue to light, citing a standing order from the DGP, Haryana, that permitted electronic service. He also referenced previous judgments, like those from the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), which the Supreme Court upheld in its 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil. These earlier rulings clearly rejected electronic service as a substitute for traditional methods outlined in Chapter VI of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court's key points included: that electronic service is invalid; that only officially recognized methods under CrPC/BNSS are appropriate for notice delivery; that while BNSS allows electronic means for trials and inquiries, it does not extend this to serving notices under Section 35 BNSS; and that serving notices through informal channels like WhatsApp risks violating the rights of the accused due to uncertainty of receipt and potential delays.

To rectify this, the court directed that all States and Union Territories (UTs) must: issue standing orders mandating traditional service for notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS; comply with the precedents set by the Delhi High Court rulings and the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment; apply similar restrictions to notices under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS and Section 175 CrPC/Section 195 BNSS; and that High Courts must monitor implementation through monthly committee meetings, with compliance affidavits submitted by Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs.

The implications of this judgment include: strengthening the rule of law by preventing arbitrary deviations by law enforcement; ensuring greater procedural fairness for the accused; acting as a deterrent against misuse of procedural discretion; and promoting greater standardization in enforcement across different jurisdictions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's prohibition of electronic service for Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS notices underscores the necessity of procedural integrity in India's criminal justice system. By emphasizing traditional service methods, the court aims to protect the rights of the accused and ensure consistent application of legal procedures. The effectiveness of implementation will be reviewed in March 2025 to ensure alignment with the Court's objectives of justice and procedural propriety.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565