Supreme Court Upholds Police must serve Section 35 BNSS notices physically; BNSS electronic service rejected

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed its earlier stance that notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be served physically and not via electronic means. A division bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh dismissed the State of Haryana's application seeking a modification of the earlier order dated 21-01-2025. The Court categorically held that the BNSS electronic service rejected argument was valid and aligned with legislative intent.

Physical Service Mandatory for Section 35 Notices

The application filed by the State of Haryana attempted to broaden the scope of permissible modes of serving notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. However, the Court reiterated that such notices—critical to an individual’s liberty—must follow the method prescribed by law and cannot be substituted with WhatsApp or other electronic platforms.

Referring to Section 530 of the BNSS, which explicitly permits electronic communication in limited contexts, the Court clarified that such provisions do not extend to Section 35. The BNSS electronic service rejected interpretation was thus upheld, as incorporating non-statutory procedures would violate legislative intent.

Electronic Mode Not Valid for Arrest-Related Notices

Section 35 of the BNSS governs the circumstances under which the police may arrest without a warrant. It also mandates a written notice when arrest isn't immediately necessary. The Court stressed that these notices directly affect an individual's liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any deviation from the prescribed service method could have grave implications.

The Court emphasized that the procedure must not only be lawful but also safeguard constitutional rights. It concluded that permitting service through electronic means for Section 35 would undermine these protections. Once again, it ruled that BNSS electronic service rejected stands as a necessary limitation to uphold the statute’s objective.

Court Summons and Investigation Differ in Nature

The Court also clarified the distinction between court-issued summons and investigation-related notices. While Sections 63, 64, and 71 of the BNSS allow courts to issue summons in electronic form (with digital seals), these provisions

cannot be analogously applied to executive functions like police notices under Section 35.

A summons from the court is a judicial act, whereas a notice under Section 35 is an executive action. Applying court procedures to executive processes would distort the legislative framework. The BNSS electronic service rejected stance, in this context, ensures the separation of powers and procedural integrity.

Limited Exceptions for Electronic Communication

The judgment acknowledged that the BNSS does permit the use of electronic communication in some scenarios—such as issuing summons for documents under Section 94 or sending investigation reports under Section 193. However, the Court noted that none of these provisions affect personal liberty. Therefore, extending electronic modes to Section 35 would overreach the scope of the law.

The deliberate omission of electronic service under Section 35 was seen as a conscious legislative decision. Upholding the BNSS electronic service rejected position, the Court concluded that any contrary interpretation would be contrary to the protective intent behind the provision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment affirms that notices under Section 35 of the BNSS must be physically served, reinforcing due process and individual liberty. The ruling clarifies the legislature's cautious approach to electronic communication in criminal proceedings and draws a clear boundary between permissible and impermissible use of technology in procedural law.

Case details: [Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021, decided on 16-07-2025]