Section 35 BNSS Does Not Empower Police To Summon Or Question Individuals In Absence Of Registered Case: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
“Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only specifies the circumstances under which a Police Officer may arrest a person without a warrant and does not empower the respondents to summon or question the petitioner in the absence of any case registered against him. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned notice,” the court said.
The court was hearing the plea filed by a journalist seeking to quash the notice issued to him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. As per Section 35(3), the police officer shall, in cases where the arrest of the person is not required, issue notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
The petitioner submitted that as per the notice, the Inspector of Police Srivilliputhur Town Police Station had come across an article published by the petitioner in a journal containing allegedly defamatory statements against the police when he was investigating a case. The police had therefore forwarded certain questions to the petitioner along with a notice seeking explanation.
The petitioner submitted that the notice did not disclose the case in which he was being summoned. It was submitted that the investigation in the earlier case had already been completed and the final report had also been filed. The petitioner added that even if a defamatory statement had been made, the proper remedy is to file a private complaint and if a cognisable offence is made out, the police should first register the case and summon the petitioner.
The police conceded that the investigation in the main case had been completed and no separate case had been registered against the petitioner for making defamatory statement against the police.
The court noted that if the petitioner was required for enquiry in any other case, the police ought to have referred the crime number of such case. The court also noted that no other case had been registered against the petitioner.
Thus, noting that the police did not have power to summon or question without registration of case, the court allowed the plea. However, the court made it clear that if any case was registered against the petitioner and his presence was required for enquiry in any such case, the police could proceed in accordance with law.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Karunanidhi
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19623 of 2025