CHANDAN PATEKAR v. STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS
Mandatory Compliance with Section 130 BNSS: Executive Magistrates Must Record Reasons and Substance of Information Before Issuing Show Cause Notices for Keeping the Peace.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:704-DB
Decision Date: 07-04-2026
List of Laws
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India; Principles of Natural Justice; Administrative Law - Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Power
- Facts: In several unrelated instances, Executive Magistrates (Deputy Collectors and SDMs) in Goa issued show cause notices to various individuals under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). These notices called upon the petitioners to execute bonds for keeping the peace based on information received regarding potential breaches of public tranquility. The petitioners challenged these notices on the grounds that the Magistrates failed to pass a preliminary written order as mandated by Section 130 of the BNSS. It was observed that the Magistrates were using "cyclostyled" or standardized printed forms, merely filling in names and dates without recording a specific opinion or the substance of the information received for each individual case.
- Procedural Posture: Multiple Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 56 of 2026) were filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the show cause notices and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Executive Magistrates.
- Issue: Whether an Executive Magistrate can validly initiate proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS by issuing a show cause notice without first passing a written order under Section 130 of the BNSS that sets forth the substance of information received and the Magistrate's opinion on the sufficiency of grounds.
- Holding: No, the court held that an order under Section 130 of the BNSS is a "sine qua non" for assuming jurisdiction under Section 126. The notices were quashed as they did not comply with the mandatory statutory procedure.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 126(1) of the BNSS requires the Magistrate to form an opinion on the sufficiency of grounds and then proceed in the manner provided "hereinafter". This "manner" is explicitly detailed in Section 130, which mandates a written order setting forth the substance of the information received, the bond amount, and the term. The Court emphasized that since these provisions involve the "personal liberty of a citizen", strict compliance with the statute is required. Mechanical or cyclostyled orders indicate a lack of application of mind and fail to meet the requirements of Section 131, which requires the order to be read over or explained to the person. Following the principle that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, the Court found the "mechanical" notices legally unsustainable.
🔒 For Members Only