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

SUPREME COURT Court's Permission Necessary For Further Investigation After Filing Final Report: Supreme Court Cause Title: PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS The Supreme Court has held that the police can't proceed with further investigation on their own, and it is mandatory to obtain a leave of the court before doing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) of BNSS. A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi allowed an appeal filed by the accused persons, setting aside a 2023 Allahabad High Court judgment that had permitted the continuation of a "further investigation" by police authorities in a decade-old rape case. 'No Mechanical FIRs For Harsh Political Posts': Supreme Court Upholds Telangana HC Guidelines For Cases Over Social Media Posts Case Title – State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr. The Supreme Court recently upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches". The High Court had held that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of pleas by the State of Telangana challenging the judgment of the High Court which had quashed three FIRs and laid down detailed guidelines for police and Magistrates while dealing with criminal cases arising out of social media posts. By the impugned order, the Telangana High Court had quashed three FIRs registered against one Nalla Balu over his posts on X criticising the Congress party under Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 352, and 356 read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Arrest Exception, Not Rule For Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs; S.35(3) BNSS Notice Mandatory In Such Cases: Supreme Court Cause Title: SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION The Supreme Court held that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory by the police to accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with. The Court was considering the seminal issue - Whether notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are to be mandatorily issued in all cases, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years?. BNSS | Arrest Under S. 35(6) Must Be Based On Fresh Material, Not On Grounds In S.35(3) Notice: Supreme Court Cause Title: SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION While affirming that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is mandatory for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest under Section 35(6) can be made even after such notice only based on fresh materials that were not available to the police officer at the time the Section 35(3) notice was issued. Also, the court issued a direction to the police officials that their “power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.” Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BNSS Provisions Allowing Judicial Officers To Head Directorate Of Prosecution Case Title – Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India A practising lawyer has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which allow judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution. The plea contends that the impugned provisions blur the constitutionally mandated separation between the judiciary and the executive, and erode prosecutorial autonomy. CrPC Jurisprudence On Discharge & Framing Of Charges Continues Under BNSS: Supreme Court Cause Title: DR. ANAND RAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. The Supreme Court has observed that the substantive legal standards governing discharge and framing of charges at the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure continue unchanged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS). However, the BNSS introduces regulatory discipline by...

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers