Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025
The Court observed that non-compliance with a Section 35 notice can lead to arrest, and hence personal liberty under Article 21 is directly implicated.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
30 July 2025
Judges
Justice M.M. Sundresh ⦁ Justice N.K. Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The State of Haryana filed an application seeking to modify an earlier direction of the Supreme Court which had held that Section 35 notices under BNSS (previously Section 41A CrPC) cannot be served electronically.
-
The State argued that since other sections (e.g., Sections 63, 64, 71, 93, and 193 BNSS) permit electronic service, the same should apply to Section 35.
-
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, serving as amicus curiae, opposed the State’s stance.
-
The Supreme Court was called upon to interpret whether electronic service of notice under Section 35 was legally permissible under the BNSS framework.
Issues
-
Can summons/notice under Section 35 of BNSS be served electronically (e.g., via WhatsApp or email)?
-
Whether the absence of express provision for e-service under Section 35 indicates legislative intent to exclude it?
-
Does non-compliance with a Section 35 notice affect personal liberty under Article 21?
-
Can procedural frameworks for judicial acts (e.g., summons by a court) be applied to executive actions (e.g., police-issued notices)?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court rejected the State of Haryana’s application seeking permission for electronic service of Section 35 notices.
-
The Court emphasized that electronic communication is not a valid mode of service unless specifically provided in the statute.
- "A summons issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act," the Court said.
- The next contention of the State was that since summons under Section 93 and 193 can be served electronically, S.35 summons should also be allowed to be served so. Section 93 is the summons to produce a document. Section 193 allows the service of the particularts of the final report to the magistrate electronically.
- "None of these procedures have any bearing on the liberty of an individual," the Court observed, rejecting the comparison.
- Hence, when viewed from any lens, we are unable to convince ourselves that electronic communication is a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent. Introducing a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, that has not been specifically provided for by the Legislature, would be violative of its intent," the Court stated in conclusion.
- "..service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right, as non-compliance with the notice can have a drastic effect on the liberty of an individual.
-
Section 35 BNSS does not permit electronic service, and introducing it judicially would amount to overriding legislative intent.
-
The Court observed that non-compliance with a Section 35 notice can lead to arrest, and hence personal liberty under Article 21 is directly implicated.
-
It was noted that summons under Sections 63, 71, 93, and 193 BNSS either do not affect liberty or are part of judicial processes, unlike Section 35, which is part of an executive investigation.
- "The contention of the applicant that a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 falls within the same category as a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and therefore, since the latter allows electronic mode of service, the former must also be permitted to be transmitted electronically, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of its non-compliance. However, a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 could have an immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non-compliance, as laid down under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023," the Court observed.
- The Court further stated that a summons issued by a Court under Sections 63 or 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and a notice issued by the Investigating Agency under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 cannot be equated with each other.
Held
-
The Electronic service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS is not legally valid.
-
Only where the BNSS expressly provides for e-service, such service is allowed.
-
Judicial summons (issued under court authority) cannot be equated with executive notices (issued by police/investigators).
-
The Court upheld personal liberty as a paramount constitutional value under Article 21.
-
Any non-compliance with Section 35 notice can lead to serious consequences, hence strict adherence to physical, lawful service is necessary.
Analysis
-
The Court used a textual and purposive interpretation of the BNSS, emphasizing legislative clarity and due process.
-
It distinguished between judicial acts (summons by courts) and executive actions (police-issued notices), reinforcing the separation of powers and the non-interchangeability of procedural safeguards.
-
The Court also reaffirmed that technological convenience cannot override constitutional safeguards, particularly where liberty is at stake.
-
By rejecting the analogy drawn between Section 35 and other BNSS provisions, the Court made it clear that each procedural right must be assessed individually, in light of its legal consequences.
-
This ruling serves as a caution to law enforcement against adopting informal or technologically expedient means in situations that directly affect fundamental rights.