Section 13 of the BNSS, 2023 (Subordination of Judicial Magistrates)

Section 13 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 establishes the chain of command and administrative hierarchy within the district judiciary. It ensures that the judicial system operates as a cohesive unit by defining who reports to whom and who has the authority to manage the best visible distribution of court business.

This section corresponds to Section 15 of the old CrPC. As per the high-priority mandate of the BNSS to simplify the law, Sub-section (3) of the old CrPC—which dealt specifically with Metropolitan Magistrates—has been deleted, further cementing the uniform judicial structure across all districts.

1. The Hierarchy of Subordination (Sub-section 1)

The BNSS clearly delineates a two-tiered subordination system within the district:

• The CJM’s Subordination: Every Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is subordinate to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge acts as the ultimate head of the criminal judiciary in the district.
• Other Magistrates’ Subordination: All other Judicial Magistrates (JMFCs and JMSCs) are subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
• The “General Control” Clause: While Magistrates report to the CJM, this subordination is “subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge.” This means the Sessions Judge maintains a top-tier supervisory role over the entire magistrate-level judiciary.

2. Distribution of Business (Sub-section 2)

To prevent case backlogs and ensure an optimized workflow, the CJM is empowered as the primary administrative manager.

• Rule-Making Power: The CJM can make rules or issue special orders regarding how cases are distributed among the Magistrates subordinate to him.
• Consistency Requirement: Any such rules or orders must be consistent with the BNSS.
• Practical Impact: This allows the CJM to assign specific police stations to certain Magistrates or to create specialized rosters for bail, remand, or traffic matters, making the system more visible and predictable for the public.

Relevant Case Laws & Legal Precedents

To ensure these notes are best visible in their legal depth, we must look at how courts have historically and recently interpreted “subordination” and “administrative power.”

1. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (2026)

In this recent and landmark ruling under the BNSS, the High Court clarified the scope of Section 13(2).

• The Ruling: The court held that the CJM’s power to distribute business is purely administrative. While the CJM can withdraw a case from one Magistrate and refer it to another (under Section 450 BNSS, formerly Sec 410 CrPC), this is an administrative tool to manage workload.
• Significant Distinction: The court emphasized that judicial functions are independent. A CJM cannot use their administrative “subordination” power to influence how a subordinate Magistrate decides a specific case.

2. Sudesh Chhikara v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (2025)

This case highlighted the high importance of the Sessions Judge’s supervisory role.

• The Ruling: The court reiterated that even though the CJM manages the day-to-day distribution of business, the Sessions Judge remains the “mentor and monitor” of the district judiciary. If a CJM passes an administrative order that is inconsistent with the ends of justice, the Sessions Judge has the inherent power of “general control” to intervene.

3. State of Bihar v. Munshilal Jain (1980)

Interpreting the equivalent Section 15 of CrPC, the Supreme Court established a proven principle:

• The Ruling: “Subordination” in this context does not mean the CJM can dictate judicial outcomes to a Magistrate. It refers to administrative subordination (discipline, distribution of work, and hours of sitting). Judicial independence is maintained even within this hierarchical structure.

Key Comparison: BNSS vs. CrPC

Practical Application for Legal Practitioners

For a lawyer, understanding Section 13 is the best way to navigate the administrative machinery of the court:

1. Challenging Work Distribution: If a case is unfairly transferred or assigned, the “general control” of the Sessions Judge is the proper avenue for grievance.
2. Urgent Applications: When the CJM is absent, the rules made under Section 13(2) will dictate which Magistrate takes up urgent remand or bail matters.
3. Jurisdictional Clarity: A Magistrate’s authority to hear a case often stems from the CJM’s order of distribution of business, making Section 13 a top-ranking procedural pillar.