AP High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Power Of Deputy Director Of Prosecution U/S 20(8) BNSS To “Examine” Police Reports

Section 20(8), which is a new provision added in the BNSS, provides that the powers and functions of the Deputy Director of Prosecution (DDP) shall be to examine and scrutinise police reports and monitor the cases in which offences are punishable for seven years or more, but less than ten years, for ensuring their expeditious disposal.

Thus, the petition prayed before the Court to declare the phrase "examine and scrutinize the police reports" in Section 20(8) as being intrusive and bad in law, opposed to the fundamental principle of investigation which is to be carried out only by the police, and subsequently requested setting aside of the same as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Raghunandan Rao today issued notice in the case.

Background

The petition primarily argues that Section 20(8) violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it neither meets the standards of reasonability test, nor does it provide any discernible basis on which offences prescribed in the provision are differentiated from other offences. Further, it was stated that there is no rational nexus between the aim sought to be achieved i.e., “for ensuring expeditious disposal” of cases and the power of examining and scrutinising final reports.

As the provision empowers the DDP to interfere and meddle with final reports, the petition further argues that conferment of such wide and broad discretionary powers, without any adequate safeguards and or guidelines for use of such power, is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Additionally, the petitioner alleges that the provision uses vague and unclear phrases such as “examine” and “scrutinise”, which incidentally confer broad discretionary powers to the DDP.

The right to a free and fair investigation, which is an integral facet of Article 21, is also argued to be infringed on the grounds that Section 20(8) empowers the DDP, who is not a police officer, to interfere with the investigation.

Lastly, the powers of the DDP are also argued to encroach upon the prescribed statutory powers of the police. For reference, under BNSS, the Investigating Officer conducts investigation, and the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station files the Final Report (Chargesheet) under Section 193. Investigation into a crime is only said to be completed when the Final Report is submitted.

Noting that Section 20(8) empowers the DDPs to meddle, interfere or directly change what is principally a function and a statutory right of the investigating officer/police under law, the petition contented,

“That the impugned provision seeks to camouflage the powers of the Deputy Director of Prosecution with the powers of Investigating Officer to create a Super Police whose eligibility (contained in Section 20(2)(a) BNSS) is the same as an Advocate with 15 years of experience or is or has been a Sessions Judge, who are neither trained in or experienced in the discipline of crime investigation, thereby hampering free and fair investigation.”

“… the manner and method of conducting investigation squarely falls within the domain of the Investigating Officer and that no authority, not even Courts of law can dictate or interfere with the investigation. There cannot be any thinning of lines between the well-demarcated function of crime investigation and subsequent adjudication of a case. At the most, Courts can only monitor investigations ensuring its credibility but not interfere with the investigation process.”, the petition added.

Case Details:

Case Number: WP 26143/2025

Case Title: KEYUR AKKIRAJU v. UNION OF INDIA and others