Section 14 of the BNSS, 2023 (Executive Magistrates)

Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 establishes the administrative tier of the magistracy. While Judicial Magistrates (Sections 9–13) focus on the trial of offences and the delivery of justice, Executive Magistrates are primarily concerned with the maintenance of law and order, prevention of crimes, and administrative governance.

This section corresponds to Section 20 of the CrPC. The most best visible change is the deletion of the “Metropolitan” distinction, standardizing the executive hierarchy across all districts in India to ensure high administrative clarity.

1. Appointment and the District Magistrate (Sub-section 1)

The State Government holds the exclusive power to appoint Executive Magistrates to ensure the best administrative control over a territory.

• Appointment: The State Government appoints as many persons as it deems fit to be Executive Magistrates in every district.
• The District Magistrate (DM): From among these appointed persons, the State Government must designate one as the District Magistrate. The DM acts as the chief executive head of the district’s law enforcement and administration.

2. Additional District Magistrates (Section 14 Sub-section 2)

To manage the heavy workload in large or sensitive districts, the State Government may appoint Additional District Magistrates (ADM).

• Powers: An ADM exercises such powers of a DM as directed by the State Government. This ensures a top-tier distribution of administrative duties, especially in matters of land disputes, licenses, and public order.

Also Read: How to Effectively Read and Analyze Case Laws

3. Temporary Vacancies (Sub-section 3)

The BNSS ensures that the executive administration of a district never comes to a standstill.

• The Rule: If the office of the DM becomes vacant and another officer temporarily succeeds to the executive administration, that officer automatically exercises all powers of a DM until the State Government issues formal orders.
• Significance: This provides a proven continuity in governance during sudden transitions or emergencies.

4. Sub-divisional Magistrates (Sub-sections 4 & 5)

Administrative decentralization is achieved by placing Magistrates in charge of specific sub-divisions.

• SDM Designation: An Executive Magistrate placed in charge of a sub-division is called a Sub-divisional Magistrate (SDM).
• Delegation of Power: In a notable administrative shift, Sub-section (5) allows the State Government to delegate its power of appointing SDMs to the District Magistrate. This makes local governance more visible and responsive to immediate local needs.

5. Powers of the Commissioner of Police (Sub-section 6)

In many urban areas, a Police Commissionerate System is implemented.

• The Provision: This section allows the State Government to confer the powers of an Executive Magistrate on a Commissioner of Police.
• Rationale: This is the best-fit model for large cities where the police need immediate magisterial powers (like issuing orders under Section 163 BNSS, formerly Sec 144 CrPC) to control riots or public disturbances effectively.

Relevant Case Laws

To maintain high legal standards, it is essential to understand the judicial boundaries of executive power.

1. A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police v. Suresh Sham Singh (2006)

While interpreting the predecessor section 14, the Supreme Court clarified the nature of the “Commissioner of Police” as an Executive Magistrate.

• The Ruling: The Court held that when a Commissioner is conferred with magisterial powers, they act as an Executive Magistrate and not as a “Court.” Their actions are administrative/preventative in nature, aimed at maintaining public peace rather than adjudicating guilt.

2. Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. (1981)

This landmark case established a proven principle regarding the nature of orders passed by Executive Magistrates.

• The Ruling: The Court held that orders passed by Executive Magistrates (specifically under what is now Section 163 of BNSS) are administrative and not judicial. Therefore, they are subject to different standards of judicial review, primarily focused on whether the order was arbitrary or violated fundamental rights.

3. XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88)

In a very recent judgment under the BNSS framework, the Supreme Court discussed the interplay between executive and judicial oversight.

• The Ruling: The Court emphasized that while Executive Magistrates have wide powers for “suraksha” (protection) and order, these powers must be exercised strictly within the procedural safeguards of the BNSS to prevent the overreach of the “permanent executive.”

Summary of Changes: BNSS vs. CrPC