A Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India addressed a batch of writ petitions challenging specific statutory sections of India's new criminal codes, specifically the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petitions raise critical constitutional questions regarding Section 152 of the BNS (dealing with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India) and Sections 173(3) and 187(3) of the BNSS, which govern preliminary inquiries prior to FIR registration and the permissible duration of police custody remand.
Key Judicial Observations
During the hearing, when counsel urged immediate interim stay on procedural provisions, the Bench adopted a measured stance, noting that trial courts and High Courts must be given time to interpret and apply the new procedural safeguards in practice.
"The Court observed that judicial implementation of systemic statutory reforms requires empirical observation of trial court operations before issuing broad constitutional stays."
Interpretation of Police Custody Remand (BNSS Section 187)
In related proceedings, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 187(2) of the BNSS, affirming that police custody is not strictly confined to the first 15 days following initial arrest, but may be sought in parts within the overall 60-day or 90-day investigation window depending on the severity of the offense.
Right to Advocate Consultation (BNSS Section 38)
The Court also ruled on the scope of Section 38 of the BNSS, holding that while an arrested individual possesses a statutory right to consult an advocate of their choice during interrogation, this right does not extend to the continuous physical presence of legal counsel throughout the entire custodial interrogation session.
Significance for Trial & Appellate Practice
Advocates across trial courts and High Courts are advised to carefully monitor ongoing Supreme Court digests as trial judges continue applying the BNSS remand and bail provisions across Maharashtra and India.