In a decisive move, the Supreme Court has enforced a legal notice ban on WhatsApp for police communications under Section 35 of the BNSS. This landmark decision mandates physical service of notices, citing constitutional protections for personal liberty and procedural integrity.
📜 Case Background: Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI
| Detail | Description |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | Justices MM Sundresh & N Kotiswar Singh |
| Issue | Validity of electronic service of Section 35 BNSS notices |
| Petitioner | State of Haryana |
| Relief Sought | Permission to serve notices via WhatsApp |
| Verdict | Denied; physical service mandated |
| Date of Order | July 16, 2025 |
🧑⚖️ Legal Reasoning: Why WhatsApp Notices Were Rejected
- Section 35 notices are executive acts, not judicial summons
- Non-compliance can lead to arrest under Section 35(6)
- Court distinguished between court summons (Sections 63, 64, 71) and police notices
- Electronic service allowed only where explicitly provided (e.g., Sections 94, 193)
- Section 530 BNSS applies to court proceedings, not investigations
- Article 21 invoked: liberty must be protected through proper procedure
“Protection of one’s liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to life…” — Supreme Court Bench
🔍 Legal Notice Ban on WhatsApp: What Does It Mean?
The Court held that introducing electronic service into Section 35 would violate legislative intent, as the statute consciously omits such a provision. The court reaffirmed that authorities must serve executive notices with liberty consequences physically, not digitally.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing as amicus curiae, supported this view, stating that WhatsApp service undermines the seriousness of a notice that could lead to arrest. Advocates Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Vidisha Swarup, and team
Respondent’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, Advocate Ananta Prasad Mishra
Amicus Curiae: Advocate Vrinda Grover
💬 Vakilify Insight
This ruling draws a clear line between judicial summons and executive notices, reinforcing that police procedure must respect constitutional safeguards. The judgment also signals that digital convenience cannot override statutory protections when liberty is at stake.
🔗 Related Reading and Links
- 👉 Outbound: India Code – BNSS Statute
- 👉 Internal: Safeguarding Free Speech in India
