Section 29 of the BNSS, 2023 (Successors-in-Office)

Section 29 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 ensures that the administration of justice is an unbroken chain. This section corresponds to Section 35 of the old CrPC.

The fundamental principle here is that judicial power is attached to the “Office” and not the “Individual.” In a top-tier legal system, when a Judge is transferred, promoted, or retired, the trial must not collapse. Section 29 provides the proven legal framework for a new Judge (the successor) to step into the shoes of the previous one and continue the proceedings seamlessly, making the transition visible and legally sound.

1. Continuity of Judicial Functions (Sub-section 1)

Sub-section (1) establishes the general rule of continuity.

• The Rule: Any power or duty vested in a Judge or Magistrate by the BNSS can be exercised or performed by their successor-in-office.
• Impact on Trials: This prevents de novo trials (starting from scratch) every time a presiding officer changes. The successor can pick up the case from the exact stage where the predecessor left off, which is the best way to reduce pendency.

2. Resolving Ambiguity in Successorship (Sub-sections 2 & 3)

In complex court establishments with multiple “Additional” or “Special” judges, it might be unclear who exactly is the “successor” to a specific seat. The BNSS provides an optimized hierarchy for resolving these doubts:

A. For Sessions Judges (Sub-section 2)

If there is doubt regarding the successor of an Additional Sessions Judge (Note: the BNSS has omitted the ‘Assistant Sessions Judge’ post), the Sessions Judge of that division shall decide.

• Requirement: The order must be in writing.
• Effect: The Judge named in the order is “deemed” to be the successor for all legal purposes.

B. For Magistrates (Sub-section 3)

If there is doubt regarding the successor of any Magistrate, the authority to decide lies with:

• The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM); or
• The District Magistrate (DM), as the case may be.
• Requirement: Just like the Sessions Judge, this determination must be made by an order in writing.

Also Read: Section 9 of the BNSS, 2023 (Courts of Judicial Magistrates)

Relevant Case Laws & Interpretations (2025–2026)

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

This case serves as a prime example of the high-level administrative boundaries in the BNSS.

• The Context: While primarily dealing with transfer powers under Section 448 BNSS (formerly 408 CrPC), the court touched upon the distinction between administrative “transfer” and “successorship.”
• The Ruling: The Court clarified that while a CJM has the power to determine a successor-in-office under Section 29 to ensure trial continuity, this does not give the CJM the power to arbitrarily transfer a case from one running court to another. Successorship is about filling a vacancy, not re-routing active cases for non-administrative reasons.

2. Radheshyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

• The Issue: A defendant argued that since the original Magistrate who recorded the evidence was transferred, the successor Magistrate could not pass a judgment without re-examining the witnesses.
• The Ruling: Applying the logic of Section 29 BNSS, the Court held that the successor is fully empowered to act on the evidence recorded by the predecessor. The court noted that in an optimized digital era, recorded evidence remains a proven basis for judgment regardless of the individual on the bench.

3. State of Gujarat v. [Judicial Officer] (High Court, 2025)

• The Ruling: The Court held that the “Written Order” mentioned in Section 29(2) and (3) is a mandatory procedural safeguard. In the absence of such a written order, the actions of a “deemed successor” could be challenged as a jurisdictional error.

3. Key Differences: BNSS vs. CrPC

Practical Rationale: Institutional Integrity

The “Successor-in-office” rule is a top-tier administrative necessity. If a high-profile trial involving 100 witnesses is 90% complete, and the Judge is promoted to the High Court, starting over would be a travesty of justice. Section 29 ensures:

1. Time Efficiency: Trials move forward without stopping.
2. Resource Optimization: No need to re-summon witnesses or re-record evidence.
3. Public Confidence: The law is seen as a stable institution that does not depend on the whims or presence of a single individual.