Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 153, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by an advocate and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.
Section 163, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 144 Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehendeddanger Text carried over almost unchanged 89%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-17.pdf 2018-07-23. WP(C) 1153/2017. Sikri/Ashok Bhushan. DATE-CHECK flagged 2017-01-24 / 03-25 / 05-24 (challenged 144 order dates, false positive); body is the named 23 Jul 2018 reportable. Repeated identical CrPC 144 prohibitory orders cannot be a perpetual ban on assembly in Central Delhi; 144 is an emergency/temporary power (two months) and an abuse if used to impose a standing ban (Acharya Jagdishwaranand). Map crpc 144 + BNSS 163 successor (near-identical 0.8884). Do not pad Art 19 (Anuradha Bhasin already in combined).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 144 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8884). The no-perpetual-ban holding carries to BNSS 163.
-
Robustaa (hyglow Cafe) vs The Commissioner Corp. of Chennai
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A municipal corporation cannot impose license conditions that add exceptions to the Cigarettes Act 2003 beyond those specified in the statute. Specifically: (1) A blanket prohibition on sale of tobacco products to all customers is ultra vires Section 6 which permits sale except to minors and within 100 yards of schools; (2) The word 'sale' is distinct from 'service' and a prohibition on 'other services' in a smoking area does not prohibit sale of tobacco products; (3) 'Smoking' as defined in the Act includes smoking with a hookah, and therefore hookah smoking is permissible in designated smoking areas; (4) The word 'regulate' in statutes does not confer power to prohibit entirely; (5) Building-related conditions such as smoking area dimensions are within municipal authority if they do not exceed statutory scope; (6) Executive orders using temporary powers (Section 144 CrPC) cannot impose permanent prohibitions.
On this section: Section 144 orders are temporary and cannot extend beyond 2 months. Court rejected sustained use of Section 144 as a means to impose permanent prohibitions on hookah and tobacco sales.
-
Vinod Kumar Choraria and Eight OTHERS vs Amit Agarwal and Other
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal revision petition challenging an order passed under Section 163(2) of BNSS becomes infructuous and is dismissible on merit when the statutory period during which such order remains in force has already expired, as there is nothing left to revise or no practical relief that can be granted to the revisionist.
On this section: The order impugned in the revision petition was passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 163(2) of BNSS. The court noted that the statutory period during which this order remains in force has already expired, making the revision petition infructuous.
-
Police Commissioner vs Yash Pal Sharma
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police use force to disperse an unlawful assembly, they are authorized to use only reasonable and necessary force as prescribed by Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 14.56 of Punjab Police Rules. The force must be used solely for the purpose of dispersing the assembly and not for punitive or repressive purposes. If the police exceeds this limit and uses excessive or brutal force, it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution, and the state is liable to compensate the victim for the tort committed by its employees. The reasonableness of force used must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assembly, whether it was armed or unarmed, whether warning was given, and the nature and severity of injuries inflicted.
On this section: Allows promulgation of prohibitory orders to prevent assemblies. The court recognized that violation of Section 144 orders makes an assembly unlawful, but this does not justify excessive police force.
-
State vs Abhinav
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to follow proper procedure in evidence collection, does not join independent witnesses, does not properly seal and preserve evidence, does not verify manufacturer licenses, and the scientific analysis is inconclusive regarding the percentage of the alleged prohibited substance, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt, even if some procedural violations are established. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses combined with inconclusive evidence warrant acquittal.
On this section: Order by DCP prohibiting use of nicotine in hookah bars; Court found insufficient evidence that accused violated this order
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Thanki Srinivas
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A voluntary and uncoerced admission of guilt by an accused person, when properly recorded after examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and after ensuring the accused understands the nature of accusation, is sufficient basis for conviction under Section 252 Cr.P.C without the necessity of adducing oral or documentary evidence. In cases of negligent acts likely to spread dangerous disease during public health emergencies (such as COVID-19 pandemic), operating commercial establishments in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders constitutes an offence under Section 269 IPC, and conviction with appropriate punishment is warranted to protect public health and enforce compliance with emergency regulations.
On this section: Power to issue orders in urgent cases. Government of India promulgated Section 144 Cr.P.C during COVID-19 pandemic to prevent spreading of coronavirus.
-
Sheo Jee Sah vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 144, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks High Court intervention in a writ petition based on alleged police recommendations for criminal prosecution, the petitioner must provide copies of the actual recommendations and supporting materials to enable the court to examine the matter. Without such documentary evidence, the High Court cannot intervene directly but should direct the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum or authority competent to take action on such recommendations.
On this section: Section 144 CrPC allows for orders to prevent apprehended breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility. The police obtained an order under this section restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the land.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 163
What have the courts held on Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 Jul 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 144, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 144 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8884). The no-perpetual-ban holding carries to BNSS 163. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 163, section 163 BNSS, section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 163 in crpc and bnss 163 meaning. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 Jul 2018).
What should I read with Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 153 (Service or notification of order), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 144 (Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehendeddanger), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called 144, section 144 or curfew order, and cited as BNSS 163, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.