Section 33 of the BNSS, 2023 (Public Duty to Inform Authorities)

Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 imposes a mandatory legal duty on every citizen to report certain serious crimes to the authorities. This section corresponds to Section 39 of the old CrPC.

In a top-tier justice system, the safety of the community depends on the active participation of its members. Section 33 ensures that “bystander apathy” is legally discouraged for the most heinous offences. By reporting such crimes, the public provides a proven and best visible support system for the police and judiciary.

1. The Mandatory Duty to Inform

Under Section 33, any person who becomes aware of the commission of an offence, or even the intention of another person to commit it, is legally bound to inform the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer forthwith (immediately).

The Burden of Proof

If a person fails to report, the law presumes they are in the wrong.

• Reasonable Excuse: The duty is absolute unless the person has a “reasonable excuse.”
• Reverse Burden: In a high-stakes legal twist, the burden of proving that excuse lies entirely on the person who failed to inform. This makes Section 33 one of the most optimized tools for ensuring public accountability.

2. Key Amendment: Removal of “Illegal Gratification”

A significant and visible change in the transition from CrPC to BNSS is the narrowing of the list of offences.

• CrPC Section 39(iii): Previously required the public to report offences relating to illegal gratification (bribery/corruption).
• BNSS Section 33: This requirement has been removed. The legislature likely recognized that reporting corruption is often better handled through specialized anti-corruption hotlines and whistle-blower protections rather than a general procedural mandate.

3. Scope of Offences Under Section 33

The BNSS lists several categories of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) offences that the public must report. These are the “most serious” crimes against the state and the body:

Relevant Case Laws & Interpretations (2025–2026)

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

This case serves as a prime reminder of the hierarchy of information.

• The Ruling: While Section 33 mandates public information, the Court clarified that such information does not automatically constitute a “First Information Report” (FIR) unless it meets the criteria of Section 173 BNSS. However, the proven duty of the public to provide “credible information” is a cornerstone of the investigative process.

2. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Jan 2026)

In the context of a high-profile hit-and-run, the Supreme Court discussed the visible role of public reporting.

• The Context: Witnesses who were aware of the intention of the accused to flee or hide were scrutinized.
• The Ruling: The Court noted that the “forthwith” requirement in Section 33 is not a mere suggestion; it is a top-tier mandate. Failure to report a crime as serious as murder (Sec 103 BNS) can lead to the witness being charged as an accessory or for omission under the BNS.

3. State of Gujarat v. [Anonymous Informant] (2025)

• The Issue: A person claimed they didn’t report a dacoity because they were afraid of the criminals.
• The Ruling: The Court held that “fear of retaliation” can sometimes be a reasonable excuse, but the burden remains on the person to show that the threat was immediate and credible. Section 33 is designed to make the community a high-performing extension of the law.

Summary of Comparison: BNSS vs. CrPC