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

SUPREME COURT Supreme Court To Examine If UP Gangsters Act Is Repugnant To Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Case Details: SIRAJ AHMAD KHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.|Writ Petition (Criminal) No.452/2024 The Supreme Court recently asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to respond to the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangster Act), and Section 111(organised crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by various persons accused under the UP Gangster Act. On January 22, when the matter was heard for the first time, Senior Advocates Amit Anand Tiwari, Siddhartha Dave, Vinay Navare, Amit Kumar and Sanjai Kumar Pathak both raised the issue of repugnancy between the State Act and the central law. These writ petitions have challenged Sections 3(penalty), 12(trial by special courts to have precedence) and 14(attachment of property), 15, (release of property), 16(inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court), and 17(order after inquiry) of the UP Gangster Act and Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. In arguendo, it has also been argued that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution. S.175(4) BNSS | Superior's Report Must If Offence Was During Public Servant's Duties: Supreme CourtAdvises Magistrates Cause Title: XXX VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 27) prescribed the procedure for Magistrates to order an investigation against a public servant under Section 175 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when the alleged offense arises "in the course of the discharge of his official duties." Unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which does not require a Magistrate to seek a report from the superior officer when the accused is a public servant before directing an investigation, Section 175(4) of the BNSS provides such a procedure. The Court noted that the provision uses the word 'may' and it has to be read as 'may' itself and not "shall". Complaint Under S.175(4) BNSS Against Public Servant Must Comply With Conditions Under S.175(3) : SupremeCourt Cause Title: XXX VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot entertain a complaint against a public servant under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) unless the complainant first complies with Section 175(3), which requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that the complainant has already approached the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint supported by an affidavit. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan considered the issue of whether Section 175(4) operates independently, allowing a Magistrate to act even on an oral complaint, or whether it is a procedural extension of Section 175(3), thereby importing the safeguards recognised in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.(2015), which mandate a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit. The Court held that Section 175 BNSS sub-clause (4) is not a standalone provision and must be read harmoniously with preceding sub-clause (3). This means no direct complaint can be filed against a public servant before the magistrate under Section 175(4) to seek an investigation, unless the threshold requirement for a sworn affidavit supporting the complaint (as established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.) under Section 175(3) is fulfilled. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT S. 105 BNSS | Police Must Videograph Search & Seizure Or Face Disciplinary Action: High Court Directs UP DGP To Issue SOP Case title - Shadab vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9 The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the mandatory audio-video recording of searches and seizures as prescribed under Section 105 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). While granting bail to an accused in a theft case involving the alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 105 BNSS creates a doubt over the entire prosecution story. The bench added that the law was enacted to protect innocent persons from wrongful implication and to ensure foolproof evidence for trial. It went a step further and observed that non-compliance with the provision by police officials may give rise to disciplinary proceedings. Criminal Appeal Can't Be Dismissed For Default; Court Obliged To Appoint Amicus Curiae If Accused Unrepresented: AllahabadHC Case title - Sanjay Yadav vs State...

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