Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: May 2026

SUPREME COURT Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused Mandatory For PMLA Complaint When Cognizance Taken After BNSS: Supreme Court Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that where cognizance of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is taken by a magistrate after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), such cognizance would stand vitiated in the absence of compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance, even if the complaint itself had been filed before the BNSS came into force. A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had affirmed the magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence under the PMLA against the Appellant, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-accused as mandated under first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT The Supreme Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken in a complaint case, is a substantive safeguard flowing from the right to fair trial under Article 21, and non-compliance would render the cognizance order void ab initio. The Court further clarified that an accused need not demonstrate prejudice caused by such non-compliance, as the defect constitutes an illegality that vitiates the proceedings rather than a mere procedural irregularity. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Parvinder Singh against the Directorate of Enforcement in a PMLA case, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment as well as the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Govt Criticism No Offence; 'Fight' Against Ideology Distinct From Inciting Rebellion: Allahabad HC Refuses FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Case title - Simran Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 255 Dismissing a plea for FIR against LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged 'Fighting Indian State' remark, the Allahabad High Court today observed that in a parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but essential. The Court stressed that criticism or ideological difference may not, by itself, constitute an offence, noting that an elected representative who declares a commitment to fight against a particular policy or ideology is distinct from a person inciting a rebellion. The High Court emphasized that suspicion cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. The bench observed that the petitioner had completely failed to bring forth any material particulars or circumstances to show that the speech explicitly called for secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities as defined under Section 152 of the BNS. How Should Courts Try Proclaimed Offenders? Allahabad High Court Explains 'Trial In Absentia' Procedure U/S 356BNSS Case title - Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 263 In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently detailed an exhaustive step-by-step procedure for conducting criminal trials in the absence of a proclaimed offender as per Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri termed the provision as a 'landmark' one for introducing the concept of 'Trial in Absentia' into the Indian criminal justice system To ensure speedy justice, the Court further streamlined the procedure to prosecute such an absconder and to complete the trial as specified under Section 356 BNSS. 'No Arrests To Be Made Without Providing Grounds & Reasons': UP Govt Assures Allahabad HC Of Strict Compliance With BNSS Case title - Santosh Gupta Thru. Her Nephew Nitin Gupta vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 268 The Uttar Pradesh Government recently assured the Allahabad High Court that a serious endeavour would be made to ensure that no arrest would be made in the state without giving the reasons and grounds for arrest to the arrestee. Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi further apprised the Court that he has already written to the State's Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police to strictly follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: May 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: May 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers