Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that the police officers are not authorized to issue notices through WhatsApp or other electronic modes for the purpose of appearance of accused/suspect. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of Satender Kumar Antil v CBI Case?  

• Mr. Sidharth Luthra is serving as the Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in this matter and has filed a compliance report dated 20th January 2025. 
• The case involves monitoring the implementation of various court directives issued through multiple orders. 
• All states, Union Territories, and High Courts were previously directed to follow a Model Affidavit filed by the High Court of Meghalaya to ensure compliance with court directions. 
• The case primarily deals with three main issues: 
  • The release of Undertrial Prisoners (UTPs) on personal bond using AADHAAR card verification. 
  • The proper service of notices under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The establishment of an "Institutional Monitoring Mechanism" by High Courts. 
• NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) has been involved in discussions regarding the release of undertrial prisoners on personal bonds. 
• There have been instances where police officers have been serving notices through WhatsApp and other electronic means instead of following prescribed legal procedures. 
• The case references earlier Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) and Delhi High Court judgments in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (2021) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (2018). 
• The matter involves participation from all Indian states and Union Territories, with their respective Advocate Generals and legal representatives appearing before the court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that:   
  • The Court noted that all parties have reported either full or partial compliance with its directions, except for: 
    • State of Mizoram (which filed compliance affidavit after the deadline). 
    • UT of Lakshadweep (which merely refiled its earlier compliance affidavit from 21st  May 2023). 
  • Regarding notice service through WhatsApp: 
    • The Court referred to its earlier decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022). 
    • It observed that notices served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes are not valid under Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35 of BNSS. 
    • The Court specifically noted the issue with a Standing Order dated 26th January 2024, from DGP Haryana that allowed electronic service of notices. 
  • On Institutional Monitoring: 
    • The Court observed the need for regular meetings by High Court Committees to ensure compliance with both past and future directions. 
    • It emphasized the importance of monthly compliance reports from concerned authorities. 
    • The Court noted NALSA's acceptance of the Amicus Curiae's suggestion regarding the release of UTPs on personal bonds after AADHAAR verification. 

What is Section 35 of BNSS? 

 When Police May Arrest Without Warrant 

• Basic Powers of Arrest Without Warrant [Subsection (1)] 
  • Police can arrest someone who commits a cognizable offense in their presence. 
  • Arrests for Offenses with Up to 7 Years Imprisonment. 
    • Requires reasonable complaint, credible information, or suspicion. 
    • Must satisfy specific conditions: 
      • Police officer's reasonable belief. 
      • Necessity of arrest for one of five reasons: 
        • Preventing further offenses. 
        • Proper investigation. 
        • Preserving evidence. 
        • Preventing witness tampering. 
        • Ensuring court appearance. 
  • Arrests for Serious Offenses (More than 7 Years/Death Sentence) 
    • Based on credible information. 
    • Requires reasonable belief of commission. 
  • Special Categories for Arrest 
    • Proclaimed offenders. 
    • Possession of suspected stolen property. 
    • Obstruction of police duty or escape from custody. 
    • Suspected military deserters. 
    • International offenses subject to extradition. 
    • Released convicts violating rules. 
    • Arrests based on other police officers' requisitions. 
• Non-Cognizable Offenses [Subsection (2)] 
  • Requires warrant or magistrate's order. 
  • Subject to provisions of Section 39. 
• Notice Procedure [Subsections (3)-(6)] 
  • Mandatory notice when immediate arrest not required. 
  • Duty to comply with notice. 
  • Protection from arrest upon compliance. 
  • Consequences of non-compliance. 
• Special Protection for Vulnerable Persons [Subsection (7)] 
  • Prior permission required for arrests. 
  • Applies to: 
    • Offenses with less than 3 years imprisonment. 
    • Infirm persons. 
    • Persons above 60 years.

Landmark Judgements 

• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022):  
  • This was a landmark Supreme Court judgment that established important guidelines about arrest procedures and notice service.  
  • The Court made several key observations. This case is particularly significant because it approved and upheld the principles established in the Delhi High Court case mentioned below. 
• Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors. (2021):  
  • This Delhi High Court judgment dealt specifically with the issue of notice service through electronic means.  
  • The court held that serving notices through WhatsApp or other electronic modes is not a valid form of service under Section 41-A of CrPC (now Section 35 of BNSS, 2023).  
  • The court emphasized that such service must follow the procedures outlined in Chapter VI of the CrPC.  
  • The Supreme Court specifically endorsed this interpretation in the Satender Kumar Antil case.