The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed several show cause notices issued by Executive Magistrates under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, observing that the issuance of an order in writing under Section 130 is a mandatory prerequisite for proceeding under Section 126. Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar held that “cyclostyled” or mechanical notices issued without recording the “substance of the information received” violate the personal liberty of citizens and fail to meet statutory requirements.
Background
The court dealt with six Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 56 of 2026) involving notices issued by Deputy Collectors and Sub Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) of various jurisdictions including Pernem, Mapusa, and Panaji. These notices were issued under Section 126 (Security for keeping peace) and, in one instance, Section 130 of the BNSS. The Magistrates had called upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace.
The petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash these notices and the subsequent proceedings, primarily on the grounds that the Magistrates failed to pass a separate, reasoned order under Section 130 of the BNSS before issuing the show cause notices.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Magistrates lacked jurisdiction because they failed to record an opinion that there were “sufficient grounds” to initiate proceedings. They contended that under Section 130, the Magistrate is mandated to set forth the “substance of the information received” in writing. It was further argued that proceedings cannot be initiated via “mechanical orders” or by merely stating satisfaction without reflecting the actual sufficiency of the grounds.
The petitioners relied on several precedents, including:
- Jitendra R. Deshprabhu & Others Vs. Executive Magistrate & Another (1992)
- Rajesh s/o Suryabhan Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2006)
- Tukaram Bharat Parab & Others Vs. State & Others (2021)
Mr. Bhobe, the Learned Public Prosecutor representing the State, admitted that the issue was largely covered by the cited judgments. However, he contended that circumstances sometimes require “immediate action” and argued that the notices issued under Section 126 should be “construed as orders passed under Section 130 of the BNSS.”
Court’s Analysis
The High Court rejected the State’s contention that notices could be treated as orders. Justice Jamsandekar observed that the impugned notices were “practically cyclostyled orders” where only the names and signatures were changed while the contents remained identical.
Mandatory Procedural Compliance The Court analyzed the scheme of Chapter IX of the BNSS:
- Section 126: Empowers a Magistrate to require a person to show cause why they should not execute a bond if they are likely to commit a breach of peace.
- Section 130: Specifies that the Magistrate “shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond… the term… and the number of sureties.”
The Court emphasized:
“The order under Section 130 of BNSS is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction to proceed with the powers conferred under Section 126 of the BNSS.”
Protection of Liberty The Court noted that because these proceedings deal with the personal liberty of citizens, strict compliance with statutory provisions is required. Justice Jamsandekar stated:
“It is a settled principle of law that if the statute requires certain things to be done in a particular manner, then those things must be done in that manner and in no other manner.”
The Court further clarified that under Section 131, the order passed under Section 130 must be read over or explained to the person present in court. Without a written order recording the substance of information, the conditions of Section 131 and Section 133 (which requires the order to accompany summons/warrants) cannot be fulfilled.
The Decision
The Court held that the Executive Magistrates cannot adopt a procedure not recognized by the BNSS. Finding that the notices were not in conformity with Sections 126 and 130, the Court allowed all six writ petitions.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices and all consequential proceedings initiated by the respective Magistrates. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Chandan Patekar & Others vs. State of Goa & Others (and connected matters)
- Case Numbers: WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar
- Date: April 7, 2026
