In a significant development in the ongoing case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021 ), the Supreme Court of India has issued critical directives aimed at strengthening procedural safeguards for undertrial prisoners and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for issuance of NOTICE to ACCUSED and WITNESSES.
The Supreme Court addressed widespread concerns related to the improper issuance of notices under Section 41-A of the CrPC and the corresponding Section 35 of the BNSS, especially through non-statutory modes like WhatsApp and email.
The Court expressed concern over the increasing use of WhatsApp and other electronic means to serve notices under Section 41-A of the CrPC. The Court reiterated that notice must be served personally, in strict accordance with statutory provisions. In response to the issues raised, the Supreme Court issued the following binding directives:
- Service of Notice: All States and Union
Territories (UTs) must issue Standing Orders mandating that notices
under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35 BNSS be served only through
recognized modes, excluding WhatsApp and other electronic
platforms. It was held that all the States/UTs must issue a
Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue
notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023
only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC,
1973/BNSS, 2023. It has been made amply clear that service of
notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be
considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the
mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC,
1973/BNSS, 2023.
It has been also directed by the Supreme court that all the States/UTs while issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery relating to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 13 must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51.
It has been also held that States/UTs must also directed to issue similar Standing Orders for service under Sections 160 and 175 CrPC (Sections 179 and 195 BNSS respectively).
This landmark order underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural fairness and the protection of fundamental rights. The directive to uphold statutory service procedures and introduce institutional compliance mechanisms is expected to bring greater discipline and accountability to criminal justice administration across India.
© 2025, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy
Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
