New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice in a large batch of writ and contempt petitions arising from orders promulgated under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in New Delhi, directing all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital evidence, appointing nodal counsel for both sides, and declining to examine the vires of Section 163 BNSS in one of the petitions while agreeing to examine the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS.
A Bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the orders on 15 October 2026 in W.P.(Civil) No. 1333/2026, titled M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors., along with connected matters listed as Item Nos. 22 to 46, comprising civil and criminal writ petitions, contempt petitions and several interlocutory applications.
In the lead and other fresh matters, the Court issued notice and permitted dasti service in addition. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, learned Advocate-on-Record, accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India. The Court appointed Ms. Aarthi Rajan as Nodal Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor as Nodal Counsel for the respondents, and directed them to segregate the cases into broad categories on or before 28.10.2026, so that a separate and comprehensive counter affidavit may be filed in respect of each group before the next hearing.
Recording that the parties had agreed, the Court directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital evidence or material collected by them. Private parties who have collected such material were granted liberty to file it before the Court. The Union of India was further directed to place on record the orders promulgated under Section 163 of the BNSS in New Delhi, apart from the order dated 23.08.2026. These matters were listed on 03.11.2026.
In W.P.(Civil) Nos. 1353/2026, 1351/2026 and 1356/2026 (Item Nos. 24, 25 and 45), notice was issued returnable on 27.10.2026, with the matters tagged with W.P.(Civil) No. 1246/2026. In W.P.(Civil) No. 1351/2026, the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 was entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct.
In W.P.(Civil) No. 1361/2026 (Item No. 27), notice was issued returnable on 05.11.2026, with reply to be filed within two weeks. Senior Advocate Ms. Indira Jaising agreed to hand over, in a sealed envelope, the material collected by the Petitioner-Association, besides the names of former Judges, former Police Officers or other social activists, which the Court said it would consider at an appropriate stage. The Court also directed that "no coercive action shall be taken against the woman journalist" whose complaint regarding alleged molestation is pending consideration.
In W.P.(Civil) No. 1360/2026 (Item No. 30), notice was issued returnable on 03.11.2026, with reply to be filed within two weeks.
In W.P.(Civil) No. 1335/2026 (Item No. 40), oral submissions were made on the vires of Section 163 BNSS. The Court noted that the pari materia provision of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been upheld in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423, and said "we are not inclined to entertain the same." Notice was accordingly issued, returnable on 19.11.2026, only on the limited issue of the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS, with reply to be filed within two weeks.
W.P.(Criminal) No. 429/2026 (Item No. 22.2) and W.P.(Criminal) No. 427/2026 (Item No. 41), which challenge the vires of the orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, were adjourned to 19.11.2026.
At the time of uploading the order, the Court noted that it had been informed that Dr. Visakamurthy, who had accepted notice for the Union of India, had passed away following a cardiac arrest, and expressed its deepest condolences. The Court granted the Union of India liberty to name another Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: M A Baby vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Civil) No. 1333/2026 and connected matters
