Section 163 BNSS: Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger (Formerly Section 144 CrPC)

Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 153, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.

(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.

(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:

Provided that if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.

(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.

(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).

(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by an advocate and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 163

Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023 empowers a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or specially empowered Executive Magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger (the master emergency provision replacing Section 144 CrPC).

Emergency Grounds: Urgent prevention or speedy remedy required to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person, danger to human life, health, or safety, or a riot or affray.
Ex Parte Power in Urgency: May be passed ex parte in emergency cases where circumstances do not admit of notice.
Statutory Duration Limit: Order cannot remain in force for more than two months, extendable by State Government notification up to a maximum of six months.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637: The 3-Judge Bench held that power under Section 144 CrPC (Section 163 BNSS) cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression or democratic dissent; repetitive orders are an abuse of power; proportionality and least intrusive measures are mandatory constitutional commands.
Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746: The 7-Judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 144, ruling that it can be invoked only in grave emergencies where urgency is clearly established by facts.
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re (2012) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that imposing Section 144 orders against sleeping citizens at midnight without imminent threat violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Linchpin constitutional challenges under *Anuradha Bhasin*: (1) The magistrate must record specific material facts showing imminent threat; (2) Blanket bans on assemblies or internet shutdowns without geographic proportionality are void; (3) Challenge repetitive extension orders under Section 163(6) as illegal.