One Year Of New Criminal Laws : Key Supreme Court Judgments On BNS, BNSS
The new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect exactly a year ago, on July 1, 2024. As we mark their first anniversary, let us look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied these provisions over the past year.SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Allows Benefit Of Section 479 BNSS To Undertrials In...
The new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect exactly a year ago, on July 1, 2024. As we mark their first anniversary, let us look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied these provisions over the past year.
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 632
In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (on August 23) held that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure- would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country. It means that the provision will apply to all undertrials in cases was registered before July 1, 2024.
Case Details : Pooja Sharma Versus Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(Crl.) No. 398/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 14) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions under Article 142 to include sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code.
During the hearing, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the Court cannot direct the Parliament to create an offence.
BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA : Supreme Court Grants Bail
Case Title – Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 835
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 18) granted bail to Badshah Majid Malik, an alleged red sanders smuggler, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the ground that he had served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the offence as per the first proviso to Section 479(1) (Maximum Period for Detention of Undertrial Prisoners) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 19) directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also directed the authorities to verify and update jail records as there may be cases where a person is accused of heinous crimes but later charges have been framed for a lesser offence, making him eligible for release.
Case Title: Kush Kalra v. UoI And Anr.
The Supreme Court closed a petition challenging a gender discriminatory provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 taking note of the fact that the statute's replacement, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has removed the provision.
The petition challenged Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the said section discriminated against women by treating female members of a family incapable of accepting summons on behalf of the person summoned.
Case : Hyder Ali v.State of Karnataka (2024)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.
Case Title: OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139
The Supreme Court recently criticized the routine use of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order police investigations, even in simple cases where the court could proceed directly to trial, stressing that magistrates should act judicially, not mechanically as a mere post office.
The Court also highlighted the changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Section 175 (corresponding to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.), noting that Section 174(4) of BNSS is a new addition providing additional safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident and considering the accused public servant's account of the situation that led to the alleged incident.
BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court on held that for an offence under section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleged on the basis of written or spoken words, the standard to judge effect of the words should be that of a reasonable, firm, individual rather than an insecure person.
Case Title: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bench noted that in Tarsem Lal vs ED, it was held that a complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC. As a corollary, provisions of chapter 16 (sections 223 to 226 of BNSS) will also apply to the complaint under Section 44 of PMLA.
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court recently explained the difference between the provisions governing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the conduct of preliminary inquiry under CrPC and its replacement Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The Court observed that while Section 173(1) of BNSS is substantially similar to Section 154 CrPC regarding the recording of information, the additional provision of a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) before registering an FIR in certain cases is a “significant departure”.
Preliminary Enquiry Under Section 173(3) Of The BNSS -- The Supreme Court Solves The Riddle
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
Section 173(3) is a newly introduced provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS'). This provision has given statutory recognition to the procedure of conducting preliminary enquiry by a police officer. However, the debate has been going on in the legal circles as to how this provision could be reconciled with the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari, and whether the preliminary enquiry envisaged under the new provision in the BNSS has to be conducted before or after the registration of FIR. In the case of Imran Pratapgadhi, the Supreme Court has given answers to these intriguing questions.
Also Read - Important High Court Judgments On BNS, BNSS & BSA : Anniversary Special Edition