The Supreme Court of India, in a series of judgments delivered between July and September 2026, has pronounced on critical aspects of the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The rulings address the exclusive enforcement mechanism under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, the mode of executing multiple sentences including life imprisonment, and the scope of the right to legal counsel during police interrogation under the new statutory regime.
Exclusive Enforcement Machinery Under the PCPNDT Act
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol held that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and an independent police investigation into offences exclusively punishable under the PCPNDT Act is legally impermissible. The Court analysed the interplay between Section 27 and Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, read with Sections 17(4) and 17A of the Act and Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996.
The judgment clarified that the mere classification of offences as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable under Section 27 does not authorize the police to investigate them or displace the specialized enforcement machinery established under the Act. The Appropriate Authority (AA) appointed under Section 17 is the sole competent authority statutorily empowered to investigate violations and institute criminal complaints. Rule 18A(3)(iv), which mandates that the police shall not be involved in investigating cases under the Act 'as far as possible,' possesses statutory force. It vests discretion in the AA to seek police involvement strictly in an ancillary, supplemental, or aiding capacity under its supervision. Consequently, the police possess no independent investigative authority with respect to PCPNDT Act offences.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act on the basis of a police report or charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC. Section 28 contains an absolute, mandatory, and prohibitory jurisdictional bar restricting the taking of cognizance exclusively to a written complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority (or its authorized officer) or by a person or social organization after giving the statutory 15 days' notice.
Can Police Independently Investigate PCPNDT Act Offences?
No. The Supreme Court has held that the police have no independent investigative authority qua offences under the PCPNDT Act. The Appropriate Authority is the sole statutory body empowered to investigate and file complaints. Police involvement is permissible only in an ancillary capacity under the supervision of the Appropriate Authority, and a Magistrate cannot take cognizance based on a police report.
Consecutive Execution of Life Sentences Impermissible
In Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. State, the Court addressed the sentencing framework under Section 31(1) and Section 31(2) of the CrPC, a provision mirrored in the BNSS. The Bench held that a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence. The Court reasoned that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict.
Where an accused is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences at one trial and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively. The Court relied on a catena of precedents including Muthuramalingam v. State (2016), O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala (2015), and Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa (2015). Directions issued by the Trial Court and the High Court ordering consecutive execution of multiple life sentences and fixed-term sentences were accordingly modified to run concurrently.
Right to Meet Counsel During Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, the Court interpreted Section 38 of the BNSS, which guarantees the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation. The Bench held that a plain reading of the provision guarantees the right to meet an advocate but does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of the advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session.
The Court observed that while it can regulate the manner and distance of the advocate's presence to prevent interference with the investigation, an unqualified entitlement to continuous presence travels beyond the scope of Section 38. This ruling delineates the boundary of the statutory right under the new code, distinguishing it from a right to have counsel physically present throughout the questioning process.
Mandatory Communication of Grounds of Arrest
The Court also examined the procedural safeguards surrounding arrest and re-arrest under Sections 50, 57, and 167 of the CrPC, and the corresponding Sections 47 and 58 of the BNSS. It reiterated that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) is a mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality. The grounds must be communicated effectively to the arrested person to enable them to seek legal remedies, including bail. The judgment emphasized that violation of these fundamental safeguards attracts public law remedies and mandates strict judicial scrutiny of re-arrest procedures.
Comparative Overview: CrPC and BNSS Provisions on Arrest Safeguards
Provision | CrPC, 1973 | BNSS, 2023 | Subject Matter |
|---|---|---|---|
Grounds of Arrest | Section 50 | Section 47 | Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and right to bail |
Production Before Magistrate | Section 57 | Section 58 | Person arrested not to be detained more than 24 hours |
Remand Procedure | Section 167 | Section 187 | Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours |
These judgments collectively signal the Supreme Court's approach to interpreting the new criminal law framework while reinforcing constitutional safeguards and the integrity of special statutory enforcement regimes. The rulings on PCPNDT enforcement preserve the legislative intent of a specialized monitoring mechanism, the sentencing decision upholds the doctrinal impossibility of consecutive life terms, and the interpretation of Section 38 BNSS balances the rights of the accused with the operational needs of investigation.