Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices: Chapter 2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
Introduction
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), enacted on December 25, 2023, represents a comprehensive overhaul of India’s criminal procedure framework, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973[1]. While the BNSS comprises 39 chapters containing 531 sections, Chapter 2 holds fundamental significance in establishing the institutional architecture upon which the entire criminal justice system operates. Titled “Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices,” Chapter 2 spans sections 6 to 20 and delineates the organizational structure, jurisdiction, and operational framework of criminal courts and related offices across India[2].
This article examines the crucial provisions of Chapter 2, analyzing how it modernizes the criminal court structure, clarifies jurisdictional boundaries, and establishes the prosecutorial framework that will administer justice under the new Sanhita.
Overview and Scope of Chapter 2
Chapter 2 of the BNSS provides the foundational structural provisions governing criminal courts in India. It defines the hierarchy of criminal courts, specifies their territorial jurisdiction, and outlines the roles and responsibilities of critical judicial and prosecutorial officers. The chapter represents a significant reorganization of the court system compared to its CrPC predecessor[3].
Unlike previous legislation that created specialized categories such as metropolitan areas and Metropolitan Magistrates, Chapter 2 introduces a more streamlined and uniform approach to court classification and jurisdiction. This modernization reflects the legislature’s intent to simplify the criminal justice apparatus while maintaining the hierarchical structure necessary for effective judicial administration.
Classification of Criminal Courts (Section 6)
Court Hierarchy
Section 6 of Chapter 2 establishes the fundamental classification of criminal courts in India. The provision stipulates four distinct classes of criminal courts:
- High Courts – The apex courts within each state or union territory
- Courts of Session – Headed by Sessions Judges
- Judicial Magistrates – Comprising various categories based on jurisdiction and powers
- Executive Magistrates – Designated officers exercising preventive and police-aid functions[4]
This hierarchical structure creates a clear chain of command and jurisdiction, enabling the systematic distribution of criminal cases based on the nature and severity of offences. The bifurcation into judicial and executive magistracies reflects the functional distinction between trial courts and those exercising preventive jurisdiction.
Removal of Metropolitan Court Classification
A significant departure from the CrPC is found in the BNSS Chapter 2’s approach to urban centers. Whereas the CrPC empowered state governments to notify cities or towns with populations exceeding one million as “metropolitan areas” with specialized “Metropolitan Magistrates,” the BNSS eliminates this classification entirely[5].
This reform addresses concerns about fragmented judicial administration in metropolitan regions and promotes a more unified approach to criminal justice. Metropolitan areas now fall within the regular Judicial Magistrate framework, though High Courts may establish specific benches or procedural guidelines for managing high-volume urban caseloads.
Territorial Divisions and Jurisdiction (Sections 7-13)
Jurisdictional Framework
Section 7 of Chapter 2 establishes the territorial organization of criminal courts. It mandates that every state constitutes one or more sessions divisions, with each division corresponding to a district or comprising multiple districts[6]. This provision enables flexible territorial organization based on administrative convenience and judicial workload distribution.
The section empowers state governments, after consultation with the respective High Court, to:
- Alter the limits or number of sessions divisions and districts
- Divide any district into sub-divisions
- Modify the limits or number of sub-divisions[7]
This cooperative federal framework ensures that territorial reorganization responds to changing demographic and administrative needs while maintaining judicial oversight and consistency.
Courts of Session (Section 8)
Section 8 specifies that each sessions division shall have a Sessions Court presided over by a Sessions Judge or additional Sessions Judges. These courts exercise original jurisdiction over serious offences and appellate jurisdiction over orders passed by Judicial Magistrates[8].
The Sessions Court serves as the principal trial court for:
- Offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years
- Offences requiring enhanced judicial scrutiny due to their nature or complexity
- Cases transferred from Magistrate’s courts
This centralization of serious criminal trials within Sessions Courts ensures that cases involving grave offences receive adjudication by experienced judges with requisite legal expertise.
Judicial Magistrates Framework (Section 9)
Section 9 introduces a hierarchical structure of Judicial Magistrates, replacing the earlier bifurcated system. The section establishes three categories of Judicial Magistrates:
- Judicial Magistrates of the First Class – Courts with broader territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction
- Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class – Courts with limited jurisdiction
- Chief Judicial Magistrate – A senior magistrate coordinating magistrate courts within a district
The specifics regarding the exact distinction in powers and jurisdiction are addressed through supplementary provisions and state-level notifications[9].
Special Judicial Magistrates (Section 11)
Section 11 introduces the category of “Special Judicial Magistrates,” a new provision under the BNSS. The Central Government is empowered to appoint Special Judicial Magistrates to conduct trials relating to offences under special laws, including those involving:
- Anti-terrorism measures
- Organized crime
- Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
- Economic offences[10]
This specialization recognizes the complexity and technicality of offences under special statutes, ensuring that judges with domain expertise adjudicate such cases. This provision represents a progressive step toward specialized judicial administration in sectors requiring specialized knowledge.
Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates (Section 12)
Section 12 delineates the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. A Judicial Magistrate may exercise jurisdiction in:
- Cases where the offence is committed within their territorial limits
- Cases where the complainant or accused resides within their jurisdiction
- Cases triable by Magistrate where any part of the act constituting the offence occurs within their territory[11]
These provisions ensure that Magistrates can exercise jurisdiction based on multiple connecting factors, providing flexibility in case allocation while preventing jurisdictional conflicts. The provision strikes a balance between territorial rigidity and administrative convenience.
Subordination of Judicial Magistrates (Section 13)
Section 13 establishes the hierarchical relationship among Judicial Magistrates. The section provides that:
- Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class remain subordinate to Judicial Magistrates of the First Class
- All Judicial Magistrates in a district are subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
- The Chief Judicial Magistrate reports to the High Court for administrative matters[12]
This subordination ensures judicial coordination, consistency in decision-making, and effective administrative oversight. It enables senior magistrates to issue guidelines, supervise case management, and maintain quality control over judicial proceedings in their jurisdiction.
Executive Magistrates and Preventive Functions (Sections 14-17)
Establishment and Appointment (Section 14)
Section 14 provides for the appointment of Executive Magistrates, who exercise preventive and police-aid functions distinct from trial functions. Executive Magistrates are typically appointed from the state administrative services and exercise powers relating to:
- Maintenance of public order
- Prevention of cognizable offences
- Issuance of orders under preventive provisions of criminal law
- Exercise of powers to restrain persons acting in breach of peace[13]
The creation of a separate cadre of Executive Magistrates reflects the functional specialization necessary to distinguish between judicial adjudication and executive action aimed at preventing criminal activity.
Special Executive Magistrates (Section 15)
Section 15 introduces the category of “Special Executive Magistrates,” allowing the state government to appoint officers to exercise specific preventive functions. These officers may be invested with powers appropriate to their assigned areas, such as:
- Traffic regulation
- Cyber-crime prevention
- Economic offence prevention
- Protection of public infrastructure[14]
This provision enables governments to respond to emerging challenges requiring specialized preventive expertise, demonstrating the BNSS’s flexibility in institutional design.
Local Jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates (Section 16)
Section 16 establishes that Executive Magistrates exercise jurisdiction over their assigned territorial limits. The jurisdiction may extend across multiple police stations or districts, depending on the nature of the preventive function assigned[15]. This flexible jurisdictional framework enables efficient deployment of preventive resources.
Subordination of Executive Magistrates (Section 17)
Section 17 provides that all Executive Magistrates remain subordinate to the District Magistrate or Chief Executive Officer of the district. In the case of Special Executive Magistrates, subordination is to the officer designated by the state government[16]. This clear chain of command ensures accountability and coordination of preventive functions with broader administrative governance.
The Prosecutorial Framework (Sections 18-20)
Public Prosecutors (Section 18)
Section 18 establishes the role of Public Prosecutors as critical officers in the criminal justice system. The provision mandates that:
- Every High Court shall have a Chief Public Prosecutor
- Every district shall have a Public Prosecutor
- State governments may appoint additional Public Prosecutors based on workload and need[17]
Public Prosecutors serve as representatives of the state in criminal prosecutions, presenting evidence, advancing legal arguments, and protecting the public interest. The BNSS strengthens the prosecutorial framework by emphasizing the institutional status and responsibility of Public Prosecutors.
Key Functions of Public Prosecutors:
- Conduct prosecution of all criminal cases
- Advise investigating officers on evidentiary matters
- Represent the state in appellate proceedings
- Maintain professional standards and ethical conduct
- Coordinate with investigating agencies for case preparation[18]
The professionalization of prosecution represents a significant advancement in the criminal justice system, as robust prosecutorial capacity is essential for fair trial outcomes and public confidence in justice administration.
Assistant Public Prosecutors (Section 19)
Section 19 recognizes the need for auxiliary prosecutorial capacity by providing for the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors. These officers assist Public Prosecutors in case management and prosecution, particularly in high-volume courts or jurisdictions with significant criminal caseloads[19].
The formalization of Assistant Public Prosecutor positions reflects recognition that single Public Prosecutors cannot effectively manage the volume of criminal cases in large districts. This provision enhances prosecutorial capacity while maintaining hierarchical supervision.
Directorate of Prosecution (Section 20)
Section 20 introduces a significant institutional innovation: the establishment of a Directorate of Prosecution. The provision empowers the state government to constitute a Directorate of Prosecution, headed by a senior prosecutor or law officer, with the responsibility for:
- Overseeing prosecutorial standards across the state
- Formulating prosecutorial policies and guidelines
- Training and capacity-building of prosecutors
- Monitoring case outcomes and conviction rates
- Maintaining professional accountability of prosecutors[20]
The Directorate of Prosecution represents a paradigm shift in criminal justice administration, elevating prosecution from a fragmented, district-level function to a coordinated, state-level institutional framework. This centralized oversight can significantly improve prosecutorial consistency, ethical standards, and effectiveness across the criminal justice system.
Comparative Analysis: CrPC vs. BNSS Chapter 2
Chapter 2 of the BNSS introduces several significant modifications to the institutional framework established under the CrPC:
Metropolitan Court Elimination
CrPC Approach: Metropolitan Magistrates in cities with populations exceeding one million
BNSS Approach: Unified Judicial Magistrate framework without metropolitan classification
Rationale: Simplification of court structure while maintaining capacity for specialized benches in metropolitan areas[21]
Special Judicial Magistrates
CrPC Approach: Limited provision for special judges for specific statute-based trials
BNSS Approach: Formal, explicit provision for appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates with clear powers for specialized offences
Rationale: Recognition of the complexity of modern offences and the need for specialized judicial expertise[22]
Prosecutorial Institutionalization
CrPC Approach: Public Prosecutors as individual officers with limited institutional framework
BNSS Approach: Formalized prosecutorial structure with Directorate of Prosecution and comprehensive institutional oversight
Rationale: Strengthening of state capacity for professional, accountable prosecution[23]
Implications for Criminal Justice Administration
Enhanced Judicial Efficiency
Chapter 2 of the BNSS creates a more flexible and responsive institutional framework. By eliminating the metropolitan category and enabling Special Judicial Magistrates, the BNSS permits customized judicial administration responding to local needs and case complexity.
Strengthened Prosecution
The formalization of the prosecutorial framework through the Directorate of Prosecution represents a transformative development. Enhanced prosecutorial capacity and accountability can significantly improve conviction rates, case quality, and public confidence in justice administration[24].
Specialized Judicial Expertise
The provision for Special Judicial Magistrates recognizes that certain offences—particularly those under specialized statutes—require judges with specific domain expertise. This specialization can enhance case outcomes in complex areas such as cyber-crime, organized crime, and economic offences.
Clarified Jurisdictional Framework
Chapter 2 provides clarity regarding the territorial and functional jurisdiction of various courts. This clarity reduces jurisdictional conflicts, prevents forum-shopping, and enhances predictability in case allocation.
Challenges and Considerations
Implementation Concerns
While Chapter 2 provides a coherent institutional framework, its successful implementation depends on adequate resource allocation. States must ensure sufficient funding for:
- Appointment of adequate Special Judicial Magistrates
- Establishment of Directorates of Prosecution
- Training infrastructure for prosecutors and judges
- Court infrastructure in newly classified jurisdictions[25]
Coordination Between Judicial and Executive Magistrates
The functional distinction between judicial and executive magistrates, while conceptually sound, may create coordination challenges in practice. Clear guidelines and regular coordination meetings will be necessary to prevent jurisdictional overlaps or gaps in service delivery.
Prosecutorial Independence
While the BNSS strengthens prosecutorial institutions, safeguards for prosecutorial independence from executive influence remain critical. Clear separation of prosecutorial decision-making from executive directives is necessary to maintain the integrity of prosecution.
Conclusion
Chapter 2 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 represents a comprehensive modernization of India’s criminal court structure and prosecutorial framework. By eliminating archaic classifications, introducing specialized courts, and institutionalizing prosecution through a Directorate framework, Chapter 2 positions India’s criminal justice system for enhanced efficiency, accountability, and specialized expertise in case adjudication.
The provisions relating to territorial jurisdiction, hierarchical subordination, and prosecutorial structure reflect careful consideration of practical implementation realities while advancing the BNSS’s broader objective of creating a more responsive, citizen-centric criminal justice framework. Successful implementation of Chapter 2 will require concerted efforts in resource allocation, training, and coordination among judicial and prosecutorial institutions across states.
As India’s criminal justice system transitions to the BNSS framework, Chapter 2 provides the institutional foundation upon which all subsequent procedural provisions will operate. The quality of this foundation—demonstrated through adequate resourcing, professional training, and robust oversight—will substantially influence the effectiveness and legitimacy of India’s criminal justice administration in the coming decades.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Act No. 46 of 2023. Official Gazette, December 25, 2023. https://www.indiacode.nic.in
[2] PRS India. (2026). The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Retrieved from https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-second-sanhita-2023
[3] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Chapter II, Sections 6-20. Official Text, Ministry of Home Affairs.
[4] Ibid., Section 6. Classification of Criminal Courts.
[5] Ibid., Section 6. Removal of metropolitan magistrate classification represents significant departure from Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[6] Ibid., Section 7. Territorial divisions.
[7] Ibid., Section 7, Subsections (2)-(3). Powers of state governments with High Court consultation.
[8] Ibid., Section 8. Court of Session.
[9] Ibid., Section 9. Courts of Judicial Magistrates.
[10] Ibid., Section 11. Special Judicial Magistrates.
[11] Ibid., Section 12. Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates.
[12] Ibid., Section 13. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates.
[13] Ibid., Section 14. Executive Magistrates.
[14] Ibid., Section 15. Special Executive Magistrates.
[15] Ibid., Section 16. Local Jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates.
[16] Ibid., Section 17. Subordination of Executive Magistrates.
[17] Ibid., Section 18. Public Prosecutors.
[18] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Prosecutorial functions as understood from Chapter II provisions and subsequent procedural chapters.
[19] Ibid., Section 19. Assistant Public Prosecutors.
[20] Ibid., Section 20. Directorate of Prosecution. This represents a novel institutional innovation under the BNSS framework.
[21] PRS India. (2026). Comparative analysis of CrPC and BNSS 2023 provisions on metropolitan courts and judicial magistrates.
[22] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 11, introducing explicit provision for specialized judicial magistrates under special laws.
[23] Ibid., Sections 18-20. Formal prosecutorial framework with Directorate of Prosecution.
[24] Ministry of Home Affairs. (2023). Statement of Objects and Reasons—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. New Delhi: Government of India.
[25] PRS India. (2026). Implementation concerns regarding adequate resource allocation for BNSS Chapter 2 provisions. Retrieved from https://prsindia.org
