SATENDER KUMAR ANTILversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

          [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1858 : 2025 INSC 909

                Satender Kumar Antil
                          v.
        Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
                  (I.A No. 63691 of 2025
                             In
                   M.A No. 2034 of 2022
                             In
                   M.A No. 1849 of 2021
                             In
       Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021)
                           16 July 2025
               [M.M. Sundresh and
         Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the usage of electronic communication
can also be extended to the procedure governing the service of
a notice, contemplated u/s.35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.

                            Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.2, 35, 63, 64, 71,
94, 193(3), 530 – Notice by the Investigating Agency – Usage
of modes of electronic communication – Permissibility – Order
passed by this Court directing the police machinery to issue
notices u/s.41-A CrPC/s.35 of BNSS only through the mode
of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023;
and that the service of the said notices through WhatsApp
or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be
considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute
to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under
the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023 – Modification of the said order
sought:
Held: Electronic communication is not a valid mode of service of
notice u/s.35, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation
of the legislative intent – Introducing a procedure into s.35, that
has not been specifically provided for by the Legislature, would be
violative of its intent – Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1859

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     excluded the service of a notice u/s.35 from the ambit of procedures
     permissible through electronic communication, that have been
     delineated u/s.530 – It cannot be said that a notice u/s.35 falls
     within the same category as a summons u/s.71, and thus, since
     the latter allows electronic mode of service, the former must also
     be permitted to be transmitted electronically – Summons u/s.71
     has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case
     of its non-compliance – However, a notice u/s.35 could have an
     immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non-
     compliance – Summons issued by a Court u/ss.63 or 71, and a
     notice issued by the Investigating Agency u/s.35 travel on different
     footings and cannot be equated with each other – Summons
     issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the
     Investigating Agency is an executive act – Thus, the procedure
     prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure
     prescribed for an executive act – Furthermore, the BNSS, 2023
     does not entirely preclude the use of electronic communication
     by the Investigating Agency – Legislature has envisioned the use
     of electronic communication, during the course of investigation,
     and upon completion of investigation by the Investigating Agency,
     specifically provided for u/ss.94(1) and 193(3) respectively – Code
     of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.41-A. [Paras 27, 38-40, 43]

     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.35 – When police
     may arrest without warrant – Interpretation of s.35:
     Held: s.35 contains an element of substantivity, which becomes
     evident from the discretion provided to the Investigating Agency –
     Substantive element is in the nature of a safeguard, especially when
     the liberty of an individual is involved – Procedure encapsulated in
     s.35(6), seeks to secure this fundamental right u/Art.21, protection
     of one’s liberty, from encroachment by the relevant Authority, and
     thus, any attempt to interpret the provision as a mere procedural
     one, would amount to rewriting the provision itself – Thus, service
     of a notice u/s.35 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects
     this substantive right, as non-compliance with the notice can have
     a drastic effect on the liberty of an individual – Constitution of
     India – Art.21. [Paras 24-26]

     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Interpretation of:
     Held: While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be
     gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed
1860                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the
    objective behind the enactment – On a plain reading of the BNSS,
    2023, the restrictions imposed by the Legislature on the use of
    electronic communication, to only certain procedures, precludes
    the use of electronic communication for any other procedure, for
    which it has not been specifically permitted by the BNSS, 2023 –
    This interpretation is countenanced by the objective sought to be
    achieved by the BNSS, 2023 – Essence of Art. 21 imbues the
    BNSS, 2023, which reflects the laudable objective of safeguarding
    the liberty of an individual, while facilitating the investigation into
    and adjudication of offences – Restrictions on the usage of the
    mode of electronic communication, have been imposed in order
    to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed to
    an individual by the Constitution, from being impinged during the
    course of criminal investigation and proceedings – Hence, the
    Legislature has particularly specified the circumstances in which
    usage of modes of electronic communication is permissible –
    Constitution of India – Art.21. [Paras 28-30]

                                List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
    Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
    Service of notice; Mode of electronic communication; Notices
    through WhatsApp; Purposive interpretation; Legislative intent;
    Liberty of an individual; Right to life; Usage of electronic
    communication; Procedure governing the service of a notice;
    Police machinery; Mode of service; Summons issued by Court;
    Judicial act; Investigating Agency; Executive act; Interpretation of
    statute; Personal liberty.

                            Case Arising From
    EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A No. 63691
    of 2025
    In
    M.A. No. 2034 of 2022
    In
    M.A. No. 1849 of 2021
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1861

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     In
     Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2022 of the Supreme
     Court of India at Delhi in MA No. 1849 of 2021

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Amicus Curie, Akbar Siddique, Karl P
     Rustom Khan, Mohd. Osama, Mohammad Farman Ashraf, Abdul
     Ahad.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Suryaprakash V Raju, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.Gs., Lokesh
     Sinhal, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.Gs., Avdhesh Kumar Singh,
     Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.Gs., R.basant, Apoorv Kurup , Sr. Advs.,
     Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Sairica Raju, Annam Venkatesh,
     Ms. Priyanka Das, Udai Khanna, Mohd Akhil, Padmesh Mishra,
     Ms. Shrdha Deshmukh, Tacho Eru, Vatsal Joshi, Vatsal Joshi,
     Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Krishna Kant
     Dubey, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Harish Pandey, Rajesh
     Singh Chauhan, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Anupam Raina, R
     N Pareek, Ankur Parihar, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh,
     Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Anshuman Srivastava, Shashwat
     Singh, E. C. Agrawala, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun
     Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana,
     Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Akshay
     Amritanshu, Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti Saraf,
     Ms. Aakanksha, Ms. Ishika Gupta, Ms. Sarthak Arya, Nikhil Jain,
     Ms. Divya Jain, Amit Gupta, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Kshitij Vaibhav,
     Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Neha Singh,
     Rishi Yadav, Arjun Garg, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun Srivastava,
     Saaransh Shukla, Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj,
     Karan Sharma, Chetan Manchanda, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms.
     Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Ms. Shailja
     Singh, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Shashi
     Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu
     K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Mrs. Devika A.l., Kunal Chatterji,
     Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Varij Nayan Mishra, Ms.
     Devina Sehgal, Mohd Ashaab, Ms. Eliza Barr, Ms. Disha Singh,
     Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms.
     Surbhi Kapoor, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, Ms. Subhi
     Pastor, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Mohan Singh,
1862                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Yeshu Mehta, Kumar
     Mihir, Ms. Prerna Dhall, Shivam Ganeshia, Ambuj Swaroop, Kapil
     Katare, Ms. Rajnandani Kumari, Prashant Singh, Mr. Amogh Bansal,
     Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Yashmita
     Pandey, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Prashant Alai, Kunal Mimani, T. G.
     Narayanan Nair, Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Manish Kumar, Divyansh
     Mishra, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,
     Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi
     Barua, Ms. Aparna Singh, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash
     Thakur, Ms. Yachna Sharma, Vishal Prasad, Ms. Asmita Singh,
     Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Gunita Tandon, Shishir Kumar Saxena, R.n.
     Pareek, Ankur Parihar, Praveen Swarup, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K.
     Nayak, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Shaurya Sahay, Ms. Pallavi Langar,
     Nirnimesh Dube, Kaushik Choudhury, Debojit Borkakati, R. Ayyam
     Perumal, Sivabalan K., Yashvardhan, Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Prabhleen
     A. Shukla, Aman Panwar, Abhinav Kumar, Akash Panwar, Mudit
     Gupta, Somesh Chandra Jha, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Ms.
     K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang
     Newmai, Sarthak Raizada Ga, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ashish
     Batra, Ankur Prakash, Anjuman Tripathy, Ardhendu Pratap Swain,
     Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
     Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta,
     Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Ravi
     Kumar S., R. Murugaiyan, Shashwat Jaiswal, Sanchit Garga,
     Rahul Gupta, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Manisha Ambwani,
     Sunny Choudhary, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Ms. Astha
     Sharma, Abhishek Singh, Sabarish Subramanian, Malak Manish
     Bhatt, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Aditya Jain, Aravindh S., Somanadri
     Goud Katam, Sirajuddin, Abhimanyu Tewari, P. I. Jose, Pradeep
     Misra, Pai Amit, Ms. Vishakha, V. N. Raghupathy, Ramesh Babu
     M. R., Ajay Pal, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Prashant Shrikant Kenjale.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   IA No. 63691 of 2025 has been filed by the State of Haryana seeking
     modification of the order dated 21.01.2025, passed by this Court in
     MA No. 2034/2022 in MA No. 1849/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 1591/2021.
2.   Vide the aforesaid order, this Court had directed all the States and
     Union Territories to issue a Standing Order to their respective police
     machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1863

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC, 1973”)/Section
     35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred
     to as “BNSS, 2023”) only through the mode of service as prescribed
     under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.
3.   It was held that service of the aforesaid notices through WhatsApp
     or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be considered
     or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service
     recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.
4.   It was also held that the Standing Orders 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.

     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
5.   At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
     behalf of the Applicant/State of Haryana that a notice under Section
     35 of the BNSS, 2023 is only an information to the concerned
     person that he is required to join the investigation, and is not liable
     to be arrested at that time. Service of notice through the mode of
     electronic communication is required to ensure that the concerned
     person does not evade service of notice, and that precious resources
     of the State are not wasted.
6.   Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023 has been brought to the attention of
     this Court. Placing reliance on the Proviso to Section 64(2) of the
     BNSS, 2023 he submitted that it permits the service of summons
     via the mode of electronic communication also, which would indicate
     that there is no bar in serving of summons through the mode of
     electronic communication. Therefore, when BNSS, 2023 statutorily
     recognizes electronic mode of service of summons issued by
     the Court, then the notice issued under Section 35 of the BNSS,
     2023 should also be permitted to be served through the electronic
     mode.
7.   Placing reliance upon Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted
     that sub-section (1) provides for service of summons to witnesses
     through the mode of electronic communication. Even if one were to
     contend that proviso to Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023 permits
1864                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     service of summons via the mode of electronic communication only
     in those cases where the summons bear the image of a Court’s seal,
     Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 is an overriding provision as there is
     no requirement of the Court’s seal therein.
8.   A careful reading of Section 64(2) and Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023
     would indicate that the former relates to system-generated summons,
     i.e., the e-Summons App, hence the requirement of the Court’s seal
     to make them look authentic, whereas, the latter relates to physical
     summons duly signed, scanned and transmitted electronically, because
     of which there is no separate requirement of any watermark seal.
     A notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 falls within the same
     category as a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and
     therefore must be permitted to be transmitted electronically.
9.   Placing reliance upon Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted
     that the intent of the legislature is clear, relating to the use of
     technology in streamlining criminal proceedings. The aforesaid
     section lays down that trials, inquiries and proceedings may be held
     through the mode of electronic communication. Therefore, excluding
     service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 through the
     mode of electronic communication, would be an exception to the
     entire scheme of affairs.
10. Insofar as 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 is submitted that these
    judgments were delivered when the CrPC, 1973 was in operation and
    the BNSS, 2023 had not come into effect. Unlike the BNSS, 2023
    the CrPC, 1973 had no provision that contemplated the service of
    summons or notice through the mode of electronic communication,
    and therefore such directions were issued. Hence, the guidelines
    issued in the aforesaid judgment have no bearing on or applicability
    to the provisions of BNSS, 2023.

     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
11. The learned Senior Counsel/Amicus Curiae submitted that notice
    served through WhatsApp or other modes of electronic communication
    is not contemplated as a mode of service under Section 35 of the
    BNSS, 2023 since the same is not in accordance with Chapter VI
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1865

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     of the BNSS, 2023, and hence cannot be treated as a valid mode
     of serving notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023.
12. It is submitted that summons are to be served personally on the
    person, as per the regular mode of service. The newly added proviso
    to Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023 permits the mode of electronic
    communication as a means to serve summons, only in those cases
    where the summons bear the image of the Court’s seal. Since a
    notice issued under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 is not from the
    Court, the Investigating Agency must necessarily adhere to the
    regular mode of service.
13. It is further submitted that Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023 states
    that all trials, inquiries and proceedings under the BNSS, 2023 may
    be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or
    use of audio-video electronic means. The legislature, in its wisdom,
    has excluded investigations from the scope of the aforesaid section,
    thereby meaning that the same have been consciously omitted from
    the purview of the procedures which are permissible through electronic
    means. Hence, the aforesaid section clearly does not permit service
    of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 through WhatsApp or
    other modes of electronic communication.
14. Finally, it is submitted that since a notice under Section 35 of the
    BNSS, 2023 is issued by the Investigating Agency, and the breach
    thereof leads to arrest and deprivation of the liberty of an individual, it
    is appropriate that such a notice be served in person on the accused,
    and not through the mode of electronic communication.

     DISCUSSION
15. The Legislature, envisaging the extensive reliance on modern means
    of communication in the present times, has recognised the mode
    of electronic communication within the ambit of the BNSS, 2023.

     Section 2 of the BNSS, 2023
           “2. Definitions
                                        ***
           (i) “electronic communication” means the communication
           of any written, verbal, pictorial information or video content
           transmitted or transferred (whether from one person to
           another or from one device to another or from a person
1866                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          to a device or from a device to a person) by means of an
          electronic device including a telephone, mobile phone, or
          other wireless telecommunication device, or a computer, or
          audio-video player or camera or any other electronic device
          or electronic form as may be specified by notification, by
          the Central Government.”
16. Notably, the Legislature has clearly demarcated the extent of
    permissible usage of modes of electronic communication, under the
    BNSS, 2023. The same is evident from the language employed in
    Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023.

     Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023
          “530. Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic
          mode.—All trials, inquires and proceedings under this
          Sanhita, including—
          (i) issuance, service and execution of summons and
          warrant;
          (ii) examination of complainant and witnesses;
          (iii) recording of evidence in inquiries and trials; and
          (iv) all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding,
          may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic
          communication or use of audio-video electronic means.”
17. Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023 states that all trials, inquiries, and
    proceedings may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic
    communication or use of audio-video electronic means. Categories
    mentioned thereunder would clearly show that it is not only meant
    for the accused persons, but also for the complainant and witnesses.
    Further, the mode of electronic communication is only one of the
    modes available, and its usage is discretionary.
18. The issue before us lies within a narrow compass – whether the
    usage of electronic communication can also be extended to the
    procedure governing the service of a notice, contemplated under
    Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. To answer the same, a purposive
    interpretation must be given to the BNSS, 2023, especially the
    aforementioned provision.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1867

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     NOTICES BY THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY
19. The BNSS, 2023, keeping in tune with the erstwhile provisions of the
    CrPC, 1973 provides for situations where a person may be arrested
    by the Investigating Agency, without a warrant.

     Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023
           “35. When police may arrest without warrant.—(1) Any
           police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and
           without a warrant, arrest any person—
           (a)    who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a
                  cognizable offence; or
           (b)    against whom a reasonable complaint has been
                  made, or credible information has been received, or
                  a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed
                  a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment
                  for a term which may be less than seven years or
                  which may extend to seven years whether with or
                  without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied,
                  namely:—
           (i)    the police officer has reason to believe on the basis
                  of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such
                  person has committed the said offence;
           (ii)   the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is
                  necessary—
                  (a)   to prevent such person from committing any
                        further offence; or
                  (b)   for proper investigation of the offence; or
                  (c)   to prevent such person from causing the evidence
                        of the offence to disappear or tampering with
                        such evidence in any manner; or
                  (d)   to prevent such person from making any
                        inducement, threat or promise to any person
                        acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
                        dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
                        Court or to the police officer; or
1868                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


              (e)   as unless such person is arrested, his presence
                    in the Court whenever required cannot be
                    ensured,
              and the police officer shall record while making such
              arrest, his reasons in writing:
              Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where
              the arrest of a person is not required under the
              provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in
              writing for not making the arrest; or
        (c)   against whom credible information has been received
              that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable
              with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
              more than seven years whether with or without fine
              or with death sentence and the police officer has
              reason to believe on the basis of that information
              that such person has committed the said offence; or
        (d)   who has been proclaimed as an offender either under
              this Sanhita or by order of the State Government; or
        (e)   in whose possession anything is found which may
              reasonably be suspected to be stolen property
              and who may reasonably be suspected of having
              committed an offence with reference to such thing; or
        (f)   who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of
              his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape,
              from lawful custody; or
        (g)   who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from
              any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
        (h)   who has been concerned in, or against whom a
              reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
              information has been received, or a reasonable
              suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in,
              any act committed at any place out of India which, if
              committed in India, would have been punishable as
              an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating
              to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended
              or detained in custody in India; or
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1869

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


           (i)   who, being a released convict, commits a breach of
                 any rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 394; or
           (j)   for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or
                 oral, has been received from another police officer,
                 provided that the requisition specifies the person to
                 be arrested and the offence or other cause for which
                 the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom
                 that the person might lawfully be arrested without
                 a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.
           (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 39, no person
           concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom
           a complaint has been made or credible information has
           been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having
           so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant
           or order of a Magistrate.
           (3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the
           arrest of a person is not required under sub-section
           (1) issue a notice directing the person against whom
           a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
           information has been received, or a reasonable
           suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable
           offence, to appear before him or at such other place
           as may be specified in the notice.
           (4) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it
           shall be the duty of that person to comply with the
           terms of the notice.
           (5) Where such person complies and continues to
           comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in
           respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless,
           for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the
           opinion that he ought to be arrested.
           (6) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply
           with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify
           himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders
           as may have been passed by a competent Court in
           this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in
           the notice.
1870                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          (7) No arrest shall be made without prior permission of
          an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent
          of Police in case of an offence which is punishable for
          imprisonment of less than three years and such person
          is infirm or is above sixty years of age.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

20. Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for arrest of persons by the
    Investigating Agency, ensuring that the concerned person appears
    before the Investigating Agency and cooperates with the investigation.
    The provision delineates the prerequisites that must be fulfilled before
    a person can be arrested without a warrant, keeping in mind the
    laudable objective of safeguarding the liberty of an individual. The
    legislative intent behind the provision is that of restricting arbitrary
    arrests.
21. Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 mandates the service of a notice
    whenever the Investigating Agency, on the basis of a reasonable
    complaint, credible information or suspicion, determines that a
    person may have committed a cognizable offence, but does not
    deem the arrest of such person necessary. In such a scenario, the
    Investigating Agency is mandated to issue a written notice directing
    the person to appear before it, or at such other place as may be
    specified in the notice.
22. Section 35(4) of the BNSS, 2023 imposes a duty on the recipient
    of the notice to the effect that once the notice is served, the person
    must comply with every term of the notice. Section 35(5) of the
    BNSS, 2023 provides that as long as the person to whom the notice
    is issued, appears as is required and continues to comply with the
    notice, they cannot be arrested in relation to the alleged offence.
    Arrest may be made only if the Investigating Agency records specific
    reasons as to why the arrest is necessary.
23. Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 lays down the procedure to be
    followed in case of non-compliance with the notice issued by the
    Investigating Agency under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Non-
    compliance with a notice does not ipso facto mandate arrest, as
    there lies a discretion with the Investigating Agency, which must be
    of the opinion that the arrest of the concerned person is necessary
    for the purpose of investigation. In other words, failure to comply
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1871

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     with the notice does not lead to automatic arrest. Rather, it is the
     last resort available to the Investigating Agency, after due exercise
     of discretion regarding the necessity of arrest.
24. Therefore, the abovementioned provision contains an element of
    substantivity, which becomes evident from the discretion provided to
    the Investigating Agency. The substantive element is in the nature of
    a safeguard, especially when the liberty of an individual is involved.
25. The protection of one’s liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to
    life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21
    of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the
    ‘Constitution’). The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of
    the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right, from
    encroachment by the relevant Authority, and therefore, any attempt
    to interpret the provision as a mere procedural one, would amount
    to rewriting the provision itself.
26. Thus, service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 needs
    to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right,
    as non-compliance with the notice can have a drastic effect on the
    liberty of an individual.
27. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically excluded the service
    of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 from the ambit of
    procedures permissible through electronic communication, that have
    been delineated under Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023.
28. While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be gathered
    from a plain and simple reading of the language employed in the
    provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the objective
    behind the enactment. On a plain reading of the BNSS, 2023, the
    restrictions imposed by the Legislature on the use of electronic
    communication, to only certain procedures, precludes the use of
    electronic communication for any other procedure, for which it has
    not been specifically permitted by the BNSS, 2023.
29. This interpretation is countenanced by the objective sought to be
    achieved by the BNSS, 2023. As highlighted hereinbefore, the
    essence of Article 21 of the Constitution imbues the BNSS, 2023,
    which reflects the laudable objective of safeguarding the liberty of
    an individual, while facilitating the investigation into and adjudication
    of offences. The abovementioned restrictions on the usage of the
1872                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     mode of electronic communication, have been imposed in order to
     safeguard the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed to an
     individual by the Constitution, from being impinged during the course
     of criminal investigation and proceedings.
30. Hence, it is manifestly apparent that the Legislature has particularly
    specified the circumstances in which usage of modes of electronic
    communication is permissible, being circumstances which do not
    have a bearing on the liberty of an individual.

     SUMMONS BY THE COURT
31. Another line of reasoning presented before this Court, is regarding the
    permissibility of the usage of electronic communication for the issuance
    of summons by the Court, under the BNSS, 2023. To consider the
    same, this Court must delve into the nature of proceedings pertaining
    to a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 vis-a-vis a summons
    under Sections 63, 64 and 71 of the BNSS, 2023.
32. We first wish to highlight the difference between investigation, inquiry
    and judicial proceedings, as contemplated under the BNSS, 2023.

     Section 2 of the BNSS, 2023
          “Section 2. Definitions-
                                       ***
          (k) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial,
          conducted under this Sanhita by a Magistrate or Court;
          (l) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under
          this Sanhita for the collection of evidence conducted
          by a police officer or by any person (other than a
          Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this
          behalf.
          (m) “judicial proceeding” includes any proceeding
          in the course of which evidence is or may be legally
          taken on oath;”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

     It is to be noted that the purpose of an investigation by an
     Investigating Agency, is markedly distinct from that of an inquiry or
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1873

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


     judicial proceedings by the Court. While the former is to investigate
     an offence, the latter is a search towards the truthful determination
     of an occurrence. Therefore, the procedure of one cannot be read
     into the other.

     Section 63 of the BNSS, 2023
           “63. Form of summons.—Every summons issued by a
           Court under this Sanhita shall be,—
           (i)    in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer
                  of such Court or by such other officer as the High
                  Court may, from time to time, by rule direct, and shall
                  bear the seal of the Court; or
           (ii)   in an encrypted or any other form of electronic
                  communication and shall bear the image of the
                  seal of the Court or digital signature.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)

33. A summons under Section 63(i) of the BNSS, 2023 is issued
    by a Court in writing, in duplicate, which shall be signed by the
    presiding officer of such Court, or by such other officer as directed
    by the High Court from time to time, and shall bear the seal of the
    Court.
34. A new form of summons has been contemplated by the legislature
    in the BNSS, 2023. Under Section 63(ii) of the BNSS, 2023, a
    summons issued by a Court can be in an encrypted or any other
    form of electronic communication, and shall bear the image of the
    seal of the Court or digital signature.

     Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023
           “64. Summons how served.—(1) Every summons shall be
           served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the
           State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer
           of the Court issuing it or other public servant:
           Provided that the police station or the registrar in the
           Court shall maintain a register to enter the address, email
           address, phone number and such other details as the
           State Government may, by rules, provide.
1874                                                   [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


          (2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served
          personally on the person summoned, by delivering or
          tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons:
          Provided that summons bearing the image of Court’s
          seal may also be served by electronic communication
          in such form and in such manner, as the State
          Government may, by rules, provide.”
                                              (emphasis supplied)

35. Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023 pertains to how summons shall be
    served. We are concerned with Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023
    which mandates that a summons shall be served personally on the
    person summoned, if practicable, by delivering or tendering one
    of the duplicates of the summons. The proviso to Section 64(2) of
    the BNSS, 2023 provides a discretion of also serving summons by
    electronic communication, only when they bear the image of the
    Court’s seal in a manner and form that the State Government may
    provide by rules.
36. From a cumulative reading of Sections 63 and 64 of the BNSS,
    2023, the argument on behalf of the applicant that Section 64(2)
    of the BNSS, 2023 relates to system-generated summons i.e.,
    the e-Summons App, hence the requirement of the Court’s seal to
    make them look authentic, falls to the ground because, irrespective
    of the summons being issued under Section 63(i) or Section 63(ii)
    of the BNSS, 2023, it shall necessarily bear the seal of the Court,
    or the image of the seal of the Court, when the summons is being
    served.

     Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023
          “71. Service of summons on witness.—(1) Notwithstanding
          anything contained in the preceding sections of this
          Chapter, a Court issuing a summons to a witness may,
          in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of
          such summons, direct a copy of the summons to be
          served by electronic communication or by registered
          post addressed to the witness at the place where he
          ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally
          works for gain.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1875

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


           (2) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed
           by the witness or an endorsement purporting to be made
           by a postal employee that the witness refused to take
           delivery of the summons has been received or on the proof
           of delivery of summons under sub-section (3) of Section
           70 by electronic communication to the satisfaction of the
           Court, the Court issuing summons may deem that the
           summons has been duly served.”
                                               (emphasis supplied)

37. Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for the service of summons
    on witnesses. We are concerned with sub-section (1) which states
    that a Court issuing a summons to a witness may direct a copy of
    such summons to be served by electronic communication.
38. The contention of the applicant that a notice under Section 35 of the
    BNSS, 2023 falls within the same category as a summons under
    Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and therefore, since the latter allows
    electronic mode of service, the former must also be permitted to
    be transmitted electronically, cannot be accepted, for the simple
    reason that a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, has
    no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of its
    non-compliance. However, a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS,
    2023 could have an immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual
    in case of its non-compliance, as laid down under Section 35(6) of
    the BNSS, 2023.
39. Furthermore, a summons issued by a Court under Sections 63 or 71
    of the BNSS, 2023, and a notice issued by the Investigating Agency
    under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 travel on different footings and
    cannot be equated with each other. A summons issued by a Court is
    a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is
    an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act
    cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act.

     EXPLICIT MENTION OF THE USAGE OF ELECTRONIC MODE
     IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY
40. We further wish to take note of the fact that the BNSS, 2023 does
    not entirely preclude the use of electronic communication by the
    Investigating Agency. The Legislature has envisioned the use of
1876                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    electronic communication, during the course of investigation, and upon
    completion of investigation by the Investigating Agency, specifically
    provided for under Sections 94(1) and 193(3) of the BNSS, 2023
    respectively.

    Section 94(1) of the BNSS, 2023
         “94. Summons to produce document or other thing-
         (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police
         station considers that the production of any document,
         electronic communication, including communication devices,
         which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is
         necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation,
         inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita by
         or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a
         summons or such officer may, by a written order, either
         in physical form or in electronic form, require the person
         in whose possession or power such document or thing is
         believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at
         the time and place stated in the summons or order.”

    Section 193(3) of the BNSS, 2023
         “193. Report of a Police Officer on the completion of
         investigation-
                                       ***
         (3)(i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in
         charge of the police station shall forward, including through
         electronic communication to a Magistrate empowered
         to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a
         report in the form as the State Government may, by rules
         provide, stating—
         (a) the names of the parties;
         (b) the nature of the information;
         (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted
         with the circumstances of the case;
         (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed
         and, if so, by whom;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1877

     Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.


           (e) whether the accused has been arrested;
           (f) whether the accused has been released on his bond
           or bail bond;
           (g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody
           under Section 190;
           (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman
           has been attached where investigation relates to an offence
           under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or Section 71 of the
           Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
           (i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;
           (ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days,
           inform the progress of the investigation by any means
           including through electronic communication to the informant
           or the victim;
           (iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as
           the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action
           taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information
           relating to the commission of the offence was first
           given.”
41. The usage of electronic communication by the Investigating Agency,
    has only been provided for effecting the procedure under Sections
    94 and 193 of the BNSS, 2023.
42. Section 94 deals with issuance of summons, in an electronic
    form, to produce a document. Section 193 deals with the usage of
    electronic communication for forwarding the report to a Magistrate,
    upon completion of the investigation, or to inform the progress of the
    investigation to the informant or victim. None of these procedures
    have any bearing on the liberty of an individual.
43. Hence, when viewed from any lens, we are unable to convince
    ourselves that electronic communication is a valid mode of service
    of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, since its conscious
    omission is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent. Introducing
    a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, that has not been
    specifically provided for by the Legislature, would be violative of its
    intent.
1878                                                    [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


44. For the aforesaid reasons, IA No. 63691 of 2025 seeking modification
    of the order dated 21.01.2025, stands dismissed. As a consequence,
    order dated 21.01.2025, passed by this Court in MA No. 2034/2022
    in MA No. 1849/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 1591/2021 stands confirmed.

     Result of the case: IA dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain