Supreme Court rules that police must serve Section 35 BNSS notices through physical delivery, not WhatsApp. Court emphasizes that liberty cannot be compromised by digital shortcuts.
New Delhi: In a major ruling concerning the rights of accused persons and the powers of the police under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Supreme Court has made it clear that notices issued by police under Section 35 must be served physically and not through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.
The judgment came on July 16, 2025, from a Division Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.
ALSO READ: Fake Judges, WhatsApp Court: UP Man Loses Rs 1 Crore in Shocking Digital Arrest Scam
The court dismissed a plea filed by the State of Haryana, which sought to modify an earlier Supreme Court order passed on January 21, 2025.
In that earlier order, the Court had directed all States and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders to their respective police departments, instructing that notices under Section 41A of the CrPC or Section 35 of the BNSS must only be served through methods clearly mentioned in the law.
Haryana had requested that service of such notices be allowed through electronic communication like WhatsApp, citing efficiency and resource management.
However, the Supreme Court refused to accept this plea. It stressed that the way these notices are served directly affects an individual’s liberty and therefore cannot be compromised.
“While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the objective behind the enactment.”
The Court observed that a notice under Section 35 can result in arrest if the person fails to respond, which is why the mode of service must strictly follow the law.
“A summons issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act.”
Haryana had argued that since Sections 64(2), 71, and 530 of the BNSS allow electronic service of summons and electronic proceedings in some cases, the same approach should apply to police notices.
But the Court disagreed, saying that the law draws a clear line between court proceedings and police investigation procedures.
The Court further stated that Sections 63, 64, and 71 apply only to summons issued by courts and can be served electronically only when there are specific safeguards like the image of the court’s seal.
These safeguards do not apply to police notices under Section 35, which are not issued by courts but by the investigating police agency.
The Court elaborated on what Section 35 of the BNSS entails:
“Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 mandates the service of a notice whenever the Investigating Agency, on the basis of a reasonable complaint, credible information or suspicion, determines that a person may have committed a cognizable offence, but does not deem the arrest of such person necessary.”
Importantly, the Court stressed that failing to comply with such a notice can lead to arrest under Section 35(6), which makes the way these notices are served critical from a constitutional perspective.
“The protection of one’s liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right.”
The Bench said that service of such notices must protect the right to liberty, which is at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution, and therefore must be done in a way that respects due process.
The State of Haryana had also relied on Section 530 of the BNSS, which allows trials and inquiries to be conducted electronically, arguing that the same should apply to investigations. But the Court rejected this too.
It clarified that Section 530 only applies to courts and not to police investigations.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who was appointed as amicus curiae (a neutral legal expert to assist the Court), supported the idea that notices under Section 35 cannot be served electronically.
He pointed out that since ignoring such a notice can lead to arrest, the notice must be served in person to ensure fairness and legal compliance.
He also told the Court that the absence of any reference to “investigation” in Section 530 was deliberate, reflecting the true intention of the lawmakers.
The Court agreed with these submissions.
It also noted that the BNSS, in certain sections like Section 94 and Section 193 (which deal with production of documents and filing police reports), clearly mentions when electronic communication can be used. But Section 35 does not have such a provision.
Case Title:
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Meta
