Key Case Law on Section 144 CrPC (relevant to Section 163 BNSS)

 

📚 Key Case Law on Section 144 CrPC (relevant to Section 163 BNSS)

✅ 1️⃣ Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970) 3 SCC 746

• 🔹 Supreme Court held that Section 144 is not unconstitutional; it’s a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

• 🔹 It’s meant for urgent prevention or speedy remedy, but cannot be used casually or routinely — the Magistrate must apply mind to whether immediate action is necessary.

✅ 2️⃣ Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. (1981) 1 SCC 71

• 🔹 Section 144 orders are preventive, not punitive — they aim to prevent breaches of peace, not punish past behavior.

• 🔹 Court emphasized the Magistrate’s discretion but warned against using the section as a blanket prohibition without specific reasons.

✅ 3️⃣ Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1983) 4 SCC 522

• 🔹 The Court said reasonable apprehension is enough; actual violence need not occur.

• 🔹 However, the apprehension must be based on concrete material — vague or general fears are not enough.

✅ 4️⃣ Ramlila Maidan Incident (In re), (2012) 5 SCC 1

• 🔹 Supreme Court condemned police high-handedness under Section 144, saying peaceful protest is a constitutional right.

• 🔹 Magistrate’s power under Section 144 cannot override fundamental rights unless there is clear danger to public order.

✅ 5️⃣ Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) AIR SC 884

• 🔹 Held that urgency and immediacy are the key tests under Section 144.

• 🔹 Magistrate’s satisfaction must be genuine and well-founded; otherwise, the order can be challenged.

---

✏️ Key Legal Principles Carried Forward into Section 163 BNSS, 2023

✅ Preventive, not punitive
✅ Must address urgency and immediate risk
✅ Must balance against fundamental rights (Article 19)
✅ Specific reasons must be recorded in the order
✅ Duration limited: 2 months + max 6 months extension by state