The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 31 July 2025, held that police notices issued under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be served physically and cannot be validly transmitted through electronic means such as WhatsApp, email, or other messaging platforms. A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh ruled that the statutory requirement of personal service under Section 35 admits no relaxation through technological substitutes absent explicit legislative authorisation.
Background
Section 35 of the BNSS corresponds to the former Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and requires a police officer to issue a notice to any person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, directing the person to appear before the officer. The provision was introduced to prevent unnecessary arrests in cognisable offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
In practice, police stations across several states had begun serving Section 35 notices through WhatsApp messages, citing convenience and the widespread use of mobile communication. This practice raised concerns about the authenticity of notices, the ability to verify receipt, and the potential for misuse through fabricated screenshots or messages sent to incorrect numbers. The matter reached the Supreme Court through a batch of criminal appeals where accused persons challenged the validity of proceedings initiated on the basis of electronically transmitted notices.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
Physical service mandatory: The language of Section 35 BNSS requires that the notice be "served" on the person, which in the context of criminal procedure mandates physical delivery — either personally or through the mode of substituted service prescribed by the statute.
No electronic substitution: In the absence of specific legislative provision permitting electronic service of police notices under the BNSS, courts cannot read in a mode of service that the legislature has not authorised. The Court distinguished this from civil procedure, where electronic service has been permitted through specific amendments.
Authenticity concerns: The Bench noted that electronic messages are susceptible to manipulation, and the absence of a verified delivery mechanism makes it impossible to confirm that the intended recipient received the notice. The consequences of a Section 35 notice — including potential arrest for non-compliance — are sufficiently serious to require the safeguard of physical service.
Proceedings based on WhatsApp notices: Any proceedings or arrests premised solely on a Section 35 notice served via WhatsApp or similar platforms, without subsequent physical service, are liable to be set aside as procedurally defective.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides an important procedural safeguard for accused persons and addresses a growing practice that had lacked judicial scrutiny. Defence counsel should scrutinise the mode of service in all matters where Section 35 notices have been issued, as defective service may provide grounds to challenge the legality of subsequent arrest or coercive proceedings.
For investigating agencies, the ruling necessitates a return to physical service protocols, which may slow the notice process but ensures compliance with statutory requirements. The judgment also signals that the legislature — rather than the executive — must authorise any shift toward electronic service of criminal process.
Practitioners advising law enforcement agencies should consider whether the BNSS requires amendment to accommodate electronic service, with appropriate authentication safeguards such as digital signatures and delivery confirmation mechanisms.