The Allahabad High Court has taken serious note of a summoning order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi, observing that the accused was not granted an opportunity of hearing as required under the relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court examined the records, and observed that,
“it appears that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the accused in accordance with First Proviso of Section 223 (1) BNSS.”
The Court indicated that such omission strikes at the root of procedural fairness. The order was delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri in a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS by Vishal Vishwakarma alias Vishal. The challenge was directed against the summoning order dated 13.11.2025 and the entire complaint case that followed.
The case traces back to an FIR lodged at Police Station Bhadohi under Sections 75, 76 and 352 of the BNS along with Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(dh) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police submitted a final report. However, upon filing of a protest petition, the same was treated as a complaint and statements were recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned.
Dissatisfied by the summoning order, counsel for the petitioner noted that the accused was not granted an opportunity of hearing prior to the court taking cognizance and issuing process. It was contended that such action violates the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law.
It was further argued that the court, while recording statements, relied on provisions of the CrPC rather than the BNSS, a mistake that, as per the petitioner, demonstrates non-application of the governing law.
The Court thus examined whether, under the amended procedural regime, cognizance in a complaint case could be taken without extending an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
The Court clarified that from 1 July 2024 onwards, it is obligatory to comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS before summons can be issued in complaint proceedings.
The Court also expressed displeasure over the manner in which the impugned order was passed. It noted that the judicial officer had not mentioned his name or judicial identification number.
Recording its concern, the Court found that,
“Despite that, the concerned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhadohi at Gyanpur has not mentioned his name and judicial ID in the order dated 13.11.2025, which is clear cut violation of the Circulars issued by this Court on administrative side and also the directions of this Court on judicial side.”
Taking the matter further, the High Court called upon the concerned Special Judge to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Court referred to its earlier directions issued in Prempal and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another (order dated 26.11.2025), as well as administrative circulars governing judicial orders.
A show-cause notice has accordingly been issued, directing the Presiding Officer to submit his explanation by 20.02.2026.
The Court stressed the necessity of scrupulous compliance with the procedural mandate of the BNSS, while highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in judicial functioning. It also directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate a copy of the order to the concerned judicial officer.
Case: Vishal Vishwakarma @ Vishal vs State of U.P. and another
Date of Order: 12.02.2026
See the Order: Vishal Vishwakarma @ Vishal vs State of U.P. and another
