Although there can be many ways to achieve efficiency in the application of law by means of technology, there should not be any compromises in procedural fairness while doing so. In an important direction which protects individual freedom, the Supreme Court of India held that the police cannot issue any pre-arrest appearance notice or witness summons using any mode of electronic communication including WhatsApp, emails, SMS etc.
This direction came as part of the ongoing review of the compliance of the landmark case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2025), in which the Bench consisting of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal directed the States and Union Territories to follow only those methods of physical service as per law.
Genesis of the Controversy: The Haryana Police Standing Order
The controversy originated from a Standing Order made by the Haryana Police on January 26, 2024. This order, which sought to optimize processes in digital terms, allowed the investigating officers of the police force to serve notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 through electronic modes.
This practice was challenged for circumventing statutory precautions. Amicus Curiae, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, contended that the Haryana Police Standing Order was completely contrary to all the laws laid down in court before. Luthra pointed out a very significant legislative difference – while the present BNSS Act 2023 permits use of electronic modes for trial and inquiry under Section 530, legislature did not think it appropriate to extend such mode to police notices
Legal Framework: CrPC versus BNSS
The apex court considered the statutory provisions dealing with the interaction between the police and persons prior to arresting or examining them.
Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973, and its contemporary counterpart under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 mandates issuance of the notice of appearance to an accused rather than arresting him or her for the offense which may attract punishment not exceeding 7 years of imprisonment.
The same applies to Sections 160 of the CrPC (now 179 of the BNSS) for issuing summon for witnesses and Section 175 of the CrPC (now 195 of the BNSS) for examining documents, where the issuance of notices is obligatory.
The Court made it very clear that all such provisions do not envisage electronic mode of service of notices. Since these notices are served by the executive police officers and not judicial courts, they don’t have any digital registry or court stamp. Hence, a mere blue tick or unread email does not create any binding on the citizen whose non-compliance can lead to loss of liberty.
Key Observations: Liberty and Procedural Fairness.
The arguments laid out by the Apex Court are grounded on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides that life and liberty may not be deprived from any citizen except by the procedure established by law.
The Court noted that issuance of a summons is an action of judicial nature while issuance of notice is an executive action. Thus, the process for carrying out a judicial action cannot be construed into the process for carrying out an executive action.
Additionally, there is no physical verification possible in case of electronic service. It would create serious potential of abuse, wherein an arrest could be made because of non-receipt of notifications due to network problems or non-accessibility to the internet.
Directions by the Supreme Court and the High Court Monitoring System.
To ensure compliance, the Supreme Court made clear guidelines and devised an oversight mechanism as follows:
First, a notice served under Section 41A CrPC or Section 35 BNSS via WhatsApp, SMS or emails has been rendered legally invalid henceforth.
Second, it was stated by the Court that it would be mandatory for the state machinery to rely upon the judicial guidelines which include: Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (2021) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi) (2018).
Third, high courts will have to ensure monitoring of the said guidelines. All the High Courts have been directed to convene a meeting of a committee every month to strictly monitor the adherence to the said guidelines.
Fourth, it was mandated by the Supreme Court to give only a span of three weeks beginning from January 21, 2025 for implementation of the guidelines, requiring filing of compliance affidavit by the Chief Secretary of States/UTs and High Court Registrar Generals at complianceinantil@gmail.com
Conclusion
The judgment in Satender Kumar Antil (2025) acts as a vital constitutional break on arbitrary policing. While digitization streamlines administrative functions, it cannot be weaponized to compromise due process. By drawing a clear line against service by WhatsApp, the Supreme Court has re-established that human rights and statutory safeguards will always hold supremacy over executive convenience.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did the Supreme Court ban the police from serving notices on WhatsApp?
Failing to respond to a police notice can lead directly to arrest. Because WhatsApp messages lack official court seals and fool-proof delivery verification, an individual could be arrested simply for missing a notification due to network issues or a changed number. This violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.
2. Doesn’t the new criminal law (BNSS, 2023) promote digital systems?
Yes, but only for court proceedings like conducting trials, inquiries, and presenting evidence (Section 530 BNSS). The Supreme Court clarified that lawmakers deliberately excluded pre-arrest police investigative notices (Section 35 BNSS) from these electronic provisions.
3. What happens if a police officer still sends me a notice on WhatsApp?
Any pre-arrest notice served via WhatsApp, email, or SMS is completely invalid under the law. You cannot be penalized or arrested for non-compliance based on a text message. Officers who violate this rule can face strict departmental action and contempt of court.
4. What are the previous court cases that the Supreme Court relied upon?
The Court relied on two major Delhi High Court judgments that established strict guidelines for physical notice delivery: Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (2021) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi) (2018).
5. How is the court enforcing this rule nationwide?
All States and Union Territories must issue new standing orders to their police forces. Furthermore, High Courts are mandated to hold monthly committee meetings to monitor local compliance and submit regular reports directly to the Supreme Court.
References
1. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Supreme Court of India, Compliance Proceedings, 2025).
2. Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
3. Section 41A, Section 160, and Section 175, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
4. Section 35, Section 179, Section 195, and Section 530, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
5. Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629.
6. Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi) & Anr., 2018 SCC Online Del 13448.
7. Haryana Police Standing Order, dated January 26, 2024.
Author: Tanisha TNR
Law student