Case at a glance: In petitions arising from police action around the 10 October 2026 Jantar Mantar protest, the Supreme Court declined to examine the validity of Section 163 BNSS, since its CrPC predecessor, Section 144, was upheld in Babulal Parate. It issued notice on a challenge to Section 172 BNSS, which allows police to detain persons, and ordered preservation of CCTV and digital material.
The batch of petitions arises from police action around the 10 October 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar. Petitioners alleged mass detentions, including people taken off trains. One petition contends that Section 172 BNSS violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 because it allows detention on a police officer's subjective view without recorded reasons or judicial safeguards; oral arguments also challenged Section 163 BNSS.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should the Court examine the constitutional validity of Sections 163 and 172 of the BNSS?
Settled Law and Open Questions
The Court refused to examine the vires of Section 163 because its equivalent, Section 144 CrPC, was upheld in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra. It issued notice only on the constitutionality of Section 172, returnable on 19 November 2026; challenges to particular Section 163 orders were adjourned to the same date.
This is an interim order, not a final judgment; the merits of the allegations have not been decided.
What the Court Actually Held
- Notice issued on the challenge to Section 172 BNSS, returnable 19 November 2026.
- All agencies to preserve CCTV footage and digital material; private parties may file theirs.
- The Union to place on record Section 163 orders issued in New Delhi.
- Nodal counsel to group cases; no coercive action against a woman journalist whose complaint is pending; other matters listed on later dates.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It opens judicial scrutiny of a key BNSS police power.
- It preserves evidence relating to mass detentions.
- It confirms that Babulal Parate continues to govern Section 163.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Petitioners' Counsel
- Focus on the absence of recorded reasons and safeguards in Section 172.
- Secure CCTV and digital evidence early.
For State Counsel
- Prepare records justifying each detention and Section 163 order.
Key Takeaways
- Section 163 challenge not entertained.
- Section 172 under constitutional scrutiny.
- Evidence preservation ordered.
- Interim order only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Because its predecessor, Section 144 CrPC, was upheld in Babulal Parate.
A provision allowing police to detain persons, challenged as lacking safeguards.
No. It issued notice and interim directions; the matter continues.
Conclusion
The order sets the stage for an important ruling on police detention powers under the new criminal code.
Practical takeaway: In detention challenges, preserve evidence promptly and frame constitutional arguments around safeguards.