SC Slams 'Excessive' BNSS 163 Restrictions, Demands Answers on Detentions
The Supreme Court orders removal of prohibitory notices near its complex and demands justifications for detentions made outside restricted zones.
In a significant intervention regarding civil liberties, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the immediate removal of prohibitory notices imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) around its own complex. The bench characterized these measures as "excessive" and noted that they actively hinder access to justice by obstructing the movement of legal professionals and citizens.
Limits on Police Power: No Detentions Outside Restricted Zones
While the Court acknowledged that authorities may need to impose restrictions within a specific operational zone to maintain order, it drew a firm line regarding the geographical scope of such powers. The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, clarified that localized restrictions cannot be used as a legal shield to justify detentions in distant areas.
"The authorities cannot rely on those restrictions to justify detaining someone in Gurugram or elsewhere outside that area," the Court emphasized during the proceedings. The bench has now demanded formal justifications from the government regarding the use of these powers and the subsequent detentions of individuals.
Protecting the Right to Peaceful Movement
The ruling comes during a hearing involving petitions and a contempt plea concerning a police crackdown on protesters on October 10. The Court underscored that the fundamental right to peaceful movement must be protected, even during periods of heightened security. Key points addressed by the bench include:
- Access to Justice: The Court directed the removal of barricades and notices near the Supreme Court premises to ensure that the ingress and egress of lawyers and litigants are not restricted.
- Essential Services: The bench examined whether previous orders—which mandated that essential services like the metro and rail networks must not face arbitrary shutdowns—were being followed.
- Professional Duties: The Court took serious note of reports indicating that lawyers were being prevented from discharging their professional duties due to these restrictions.
Demand for Accountability and Compliance
The Court has mandated that there shall be no illegal detentions of peaceful, unarmed assemblages outside the specific zones where Section 163 is active. To ensure accountability, the bench has sought formal reports and justifications from the government regarding the implementation of these laws and the conduct of law enforcement during recent protests.
The proceedings highlighted a critical role for the legal community, with advocates noting that lawyers must act as "sentinels at police stations" to ensure that detentions strictly adhere to the Constitution and the law.