Imagine a police officer gives you an order on the street. If you pause, disagree, or walk away, can they immediately take you into custody without an FIR or a warrant? Under India’s newly implemented criminal procedure code, that exact power is codified under a controversial new provision: Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Now, this expansive power is facing constitutional scrutiny at the highest level. The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine whether Section 172 BNSS violates fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen. At the same time, the top court firmly declined to reopen the debate on Section 163 BNSS, which replaced the familiar Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Supreme Court Draws a Clear Line
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions emerging from recent demonstrations in the national capital. The petitioners asked the court to strike down both Section 163 and Section 172 of the BNSS as unconstitutional.
The bench quickly drew a distinction between the two provisions. When counsel made oral arguments against Section 163 BNSS, the bench pointed out that its predecessor, Section 144 CrPC, had already settled into Indian jurisprudence decades ago.
The court noted that a Constitution Bench in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) had firmly upheld the validity of Section 144. Because Section 163 BNSS is essentially identical in substance (a pari materia provision) to old Section 144, the bench saw no reason to entertain a fresh challenge against it.
However, Section 172 BNSS is entirely different. It represents a brand-new statutory power that never existed in the 1973 CrPC. Recognizing the gravity of this shift, the bench issued notice to the Union Government, directing it to file a formal reply within two weeks.
What Is Section 172 BNSS?
To understand the controversy, one must look at how police powers expanded under the BNSS. Under Chapter XII of the Sanhita, police officers are tasked with preventive action to stop crimes before they happen. Section 172 is divided into two operative parts:
- Section 172(1): Mandates that all persons must comply with any lawful direction given by a police officer while performing duties under this preventive chapter.
- Section 172(2): Grants the police officer the direct authority to detain or remove anyone who resists, refuses, ignores, or disregards such directions. The officer may either produce that person before an Executive Magistrate or release them within 24 hours in petty matters.
The petitioners argue that this section creates a dangerous loophole in personal liberty. Under normal circumstances, police cannot arrest or detain a citizen without following strict procedural safeguards, such as showing reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence or recording written reasons.
Under Section 172, a citizen can be detained based entirely on an officer’s subjective assessment that an order was “disregarded.” The petition contends that the provision lacks clear standards, invites arbitrary misuse, and fails to provide adequate judicial oversight.
The Protests That Brought the Issue to Court
The legal challenge did not emerge in a vacuum. It arose directly from events at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on October 10. Protesters had gathered to demonstrate against the Chief Election Commissioner regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
According to the petitions, authorities clamped down heavily on the demonstration. Thousands of individuals—including university students, civil rights activists, practicing advocates, journalists, and political leaders—were detained or blocked long before reaching the venue. Some citizens were reportedly intercepted at regional transit points or taken off passenger trains.
Several petitions alleged excessive use of force, arbitrary restrictions on public transport, and unlawful curbs on the press. Alongside challenging individual clampdown orders, the petitioners mounted a direct legal attack on the statutory tools used to enforce them.
What The Law Says: The Constitutional Friction
When any procedural law is challenged before the Supreme Court, it is tested against Part III of the Constitution of India:
- Article 14 (Equality Before Law): Laws that grant unguided, arbitrary discretion to executive officers violate the principle of non-arbitrariness embedded in Article 14.
- Article 19(1)(a) & (b) (Freedom of Speech and Assembly): Citizens have a protected right to assemble peacefully without arms and express their views. Broad detention powers can be used to pre-emptively shut down legitimate dissent.
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): No person can be deprived of their liberty except according to “procedure established by law.” That procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, not oppressive or whimsical.
The core question before the bench is whether Section 172 creates a reasonable restriction or gives the state an unchecked tool to bypass standard arrest protocols.
Preserving Evidence and Scrutinizing Curfew Orders
While issuing notice on Section 172, the Supreme Court took concrete steps to ensure transparency regarding the Delhi incidents. The bench directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and any other digital evidence recorded during the clampdowns.
The court also permitted private individuals and media personnel who documented the events to submit their recordings for review. Furthermore, the bench directed the Union Government to place on record all prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 BNSS in New Delhi, including an earlier order dated August 23, 2026.
The bench adjourned the challenges to those specific Section 163 orders to November 19, ensuring that the ground-level application of emergency powers is evaluated alongside the larger statutory challenge.
Why This Matters For You
This case is not just about a single protest in the capital; it directly impacts how police interact with ordinary citizens across India. With the BNSS now in force, Section 172 applies everywhere from rural outposts to metropolitan traffic junctions.
If an officer tells a crowd to disperse or orders a bystander to move along, Section 172 allows instant detention if the person fails to comply immediately. If the Supreme Court upholds this section without strict guidelines, citizens could face detention for minor non-violent disagreements with local officers. If the court reads down the provision or strikes it down, it will reinforce that liberty cannot be curtailed on mere executive whim.
What Happens Next
The Union Government must submit its formal counter-affidavit explaining the necessity and constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS within two weeks. The matter is scheduled to return before the Supreme Court on November 19, 2026, for a comprehensive hearing on preventive detention and assembly rights.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will set the definitive ground rules for how far state authorities can go in managing public spaces under India’s new criminal framework.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
