The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Union government to respond to a petition questioning the constitutional validity of Section 20(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which grants prosecution officials the authority to review police chargesheets. The petition contends that this provision infringes upon the separation of powers between the police and prosecution, potentially violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Section 20(8) of the BNSS authorizes Deputy Directors of Prosecution to "examine and scrutinize" police reports in cases where the prescribed punishment ranges between seven and ten years. The petitioner argues that this mandate blurs the well-established separation between investigation and prosecution, as the Investigating Officer is legally empowered to conduct and conclude criminal investigations, including the filing of a final report or chargesheet before the magistrate. Allowing prosecution officials, who may be advocates or former judges but not trained investigators, to review and potentially interfere with these reports amounts to creating a "super police."
The petition further contends that Section 20(8) violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification. While Sections 20(7) and 20(9) of the BNSS specify monitoring responsibilities for prosecution officials based on the severity of punishment, only Section 20(8) authorizes scrutiny of police reports. The petitioner claims this additional power has no rational nexus with the stated objective of ensuring "expeditious disposal" of cases.
Concerns have also been raised over the vagueness of the terms "examine and scrutinize." The petition states that such undefined discretion risks arbitrary interference in investigations, thereby undermining the right to a free and fair probe protected under Article 21. The plea stresses that investigation into a crime is not complete until the filing of the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Any intrusion at this stage, it argues, compromises both the statutory role of the police and the rights of the accused.
The petition also points out that Section 20(2) of the BNSS allows advocates with 15 years' experience or sitting and former sessions judges to be appointed as Deputy Directors of Prosecution. According to the petitioner, neither category has investigative training, making such interference all the more problematic.
The case will next be heard after the Centre submits its response.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.