The Bombay Excessive Court docket has strongly criticised Maharashtra Police for failing to conform with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which mandates completion of preliminary inquiries inside 14 days. The BNSS changed the Legal Process Code and got here into impact on July 1, 2024. 

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, listening to three separate petitions, stated police have been performing in “utter disregard to the mandate of regulation” and directed senior officers and the Union House Ministry to clarify the lapses. 

In Kundan Jaywant Patil’s petition, the courtroom noticed, “We recurrently come throughout circumstances whereby the police personnel and/or Police Stations inside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court docket are conducting preliminary enquiries leisurely as per their very own whims and caprices and in utter disregard to the mandate of regulation, i.e., Part 173(3)(i) of BNSS.” 

The Bench famous that inquiries, mandated to conclude inside 14 days, “proceed for months collectively,” including, “Both the police personnel aren’t conscious of the truth that the Authorities of India has enacted BNSS and it got here into impact from 1st July 2024, or they’re intentionally not following the obligatory provisions of regulation for causes finest recognized to them.” 

The courtroom allowed the petitioner to implead the Union of India via its House Division and directed discover to the Extra Solicitor Normal for help. The matter will probably be heard on December 19. 

Advocate Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for Mr. Patil, argued, “Police are hiding behind limitless preliminary inquiries. This defeats the mandate of BNSS and harasses complainants.” 

In Mehul Jain’s petition, the Bench questioned Mumbai Police for summoning residents beneath obscure references from the Maharashtra Police Handbook. It remarked, “We’re recurrently coming throughout such cases the place residents of India are being summoned at Police Station by giving reference of ’Motion Register’, which in line with us prima facie just isn’t correct.” 

The courtroom directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Legislation & Order), Mumbai to make clear whether or not BNSS applies to Mumbai Police and why officers are issuing summonses beneath “some unknown process though not prescribed within the police guide.”  

Advocate Rajiv Chavan, for Mr. Jain, stated, “My shopper lodged a grievance towards potential accused, but he was summoned beneath a imprecise reference to ‘Motion Register.’ That is harassment and opposite to BNSS provisions.” 

In Ashwin Ashirvad Parmar’s petition, the courtroom directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kherwadi Division to clarify why an inquiry ordered by the Maharashtra State Fee for SC & ST was not accomplished inside 14 days as mandated by BNSS.  

Advocate Kiran Varma, for Mr. Parmar, argued, “The Fee’s instructions have been clear, but the police did not act inside the statutory timeline. This defeats the aim of BNSS.”