Supreme Court Bars WhatsApp Notices Under BNSS: Liberty Cannot Rest on Informal Messages
Section 35 Notices Must Follow Authorized, Reliable Service Methods
Court Warns Against Risk of Arbitrary Arrest Through Informal Electronic Communication
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: June 24, 2026:
This ruling underscores that while technology offers convenience, constitutional safeguards demand rigor. The Court clarified that notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be casually served via WhatsApp or email, since ignoring such notices may lead to arrest. Parliament has allowed electronic service in other BNSS provisions, but deliberately excluded Section 35, signalling the need for a more secure legislative framework before digital service can be recognized.
The Supreme Court has ruled that serving notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 via WhatsApp or informal electronic means is not legally valid. Notices must be served through reliable, authorized methods to protect constitutional rights, especially since non-compliance can lead to arrest.
Key Takeaways from the Article
Case Reference: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025)
Issue: Police authorities began serving Section 35 BNSS notices via WhatsApp/email for convenience.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: Such service is invalid because Section 35 does not authorize electronic communication.
Reasoning:
Notices under Section 35 are safeguards against arbitrary arrest.
If improperly served, they fail to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Parliament has explicitly allowed electronic service in other BNSS provisions (Sections 94, 193), but not in Section 35.
WhatsApp delivery confirmation does not prove the intended recipient actually received or understood the notice.
Why Section 35 Notices Matter
Originates from Section 41-A CrPC, designed to prevent unnecessary arrests.
Purpose: Allows individuals to cooperate with investigations without immediate arrest.
Failure to comply: May lead to arrest, but only after an officer independently assesses necessity.
Critical safeguard: Ensures liberty is not arbitrarily curtailed.
Why WhatsApp Service Was Rejected
Unreliable delivery: Phones change, are shared, or lack internet access.
No statutory backing: Parliament deliberately omitted electronic service in Section 35.
Risk of arrest: Since ignoring a notice can lead to arrest, service must be legally robust.
Due process concern: Convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees of liberty.
Practical Dilemma
Physical service is often slow, costly, and impractical.
Electronic service is faster but lacks safeguards.
Investigating agencies face challenges in balancing efficiency with fairness.
The Way Forward
The Court did not reject technology outright.
It emphasized the need for a legislative framework to regulate electronic service of notices.
Possible reforms:
Verified digital addresses for individuals.
Reliable confirmation mechanisms (e.g., digital signatures, Aadhaar-linked delivery).
Hybrid approach: electronic + physical service until safeguards are established.
Comparison: Physical vs. Electronic Service
In short: Notices under Section 35 BNSS cannot be served via WhatsApp or informal electronic means. Parliament must create a regulated framework if digital service is to be adopted, ensuring both efficiency and constitutional fairness.
Aspect — Physical Service — Electronic Service (WhatsApp/Email)
Legality under BNSS — Valid — Not authorized under Section 35
Reliability — High (direct delivery) — Low (shared devices, no proof of receipt)
Speed & Cost — Slow, costly — Fast, inexpensive
Safeguards — Strong (acknowledged receipt) — Weak (delivery ≠ receipt)
Risk of Arrest Impact — Protected — Compromised