Section 21 of the BNSS, 2023 (Courts Triable)

Section 21 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 defines the jurisdictional competence of various courts to try criminal offences. This section corresponds to Section 26 of the old CrPC.

The BNSS retains the core structure of the CrPC but introduces high-value changes to align with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Most notably, it broadens the scope of trials presided over by women for sexual offences, including the new provision for “deceitful sexual intercourse,” ensuring the best visible protection for victims.

1. General Jurisdiction for BNS Offences (Clause a)

Under the BNSS, the determination of which court will try an offence is guided by the First Schedule. Generally, any offence under the BNS can be tried by:

1. The High Court (has inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction).
2. The Court of Session (typically for heinous crimes like murder).
3. Any other Court specifically mentioned in the First Schedule (e.g., JMFC or JMSC).

Also Read: Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

2. Mandatory Female Presiding Officers for Sexual Offences

A top-tier feature of the BNSS is the strengthening of the proviso to Section 21(a). It mandates that specific sexual offences be tried “as far as practicable” by a court presided over by a woman.

The list of sections has been updated to reflect the BNS:

• BNS Sections 64 to 71: This covers rape, aggravated rape, and the newly defined Section 69.
• The Addition of Section 69 BNS: Unlike the old CrPC/IPC, the BNSS specifically includes trials for “sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means” (e.g., false promise of marriage) in the list of cases to be tried by a woman judge.
• Rationale: This creates a more sensitive and conducive environment for the prosecutrix to testify, making the pursuit of justice more visible and balanced.

3. Offences Under Other Special Laws (Clause b)

For offences not found in the BNS (e.g., NDPS, PMLA, or local acts):

• If the Special Law mentions a specific court, that court has exclusive jurisdiction.
• If the law is silent, the offence may be tried by the High Court or the court specified in the First Schedule of the BNSS.

Also Read: Conditions and Warranties – Sale of Goods Act, 1930

4. Significant Deletions and Streamlining

To make the BNSS an optimized procedural code, several redundant sections from the old CrPC have been removed:

1. Deletion of Juvenile Jurisdiction (Old Sec 27): Under the old CrPC, Section 27 dealt with the jurisdiction over children. This has been deleted in the BNSS because the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is now the complete, self-contained code for children in conflict with the law.
2. Removal of Assistant Sessions Judges (Old Sec 28): As we noted in Chapter II, the post of Assistant Sessions Judge no longer exists. Consequently, the powers previously vested in them have been removed from Section 22 and 29 of the BNSS.
3. Metropolitan Hierarchy (Old Sec 29): Since “Metropolitan Areas” have been abolished, all references to Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (CMM) and MMs have been deleted to ensure a proven uniform judicial structure.

Relevant Case Laws (2025–2026)

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

This case, which we have followed throughout our study, provides a high-impact clarification on jurisdiction.

• The Ruling: The High Court emphasized that while Section 21 establishes the type of court that can try an offence, the actual transfer of cases between those courts remains a purely judicial power. The Court held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot unilaterally transfer a case to a court of higher jurisdiction (like a Sessions Court) without following the formal committal process.

2. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, Jan 2026)

A prime judgment concerning the trial of sexual offences.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that the proviso in Section 21 (regarding woman judges) is not a mere suggestion. The Court directed all High Courts to ensure that as many “Rape Special Courts” as possible are headed by women. It noted that failing to do so without a valid administrative reason (practicability) could be seen as a violation of the spirit of the BNSS.

3. Jitendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand (Jan 2026)

This case explored the transition from CrPC to BNSS.

• The Ruling: The High Court clarified that for offences committed after July 1, 2024, the jurisdiction must strictly follow Section 21 of the BNSS. However, for “legacy cases” where the trial began under the CrPC, the old jurisdiction remains valid under the “Savings” clause of the new law.

Summary of Changes: BNSS vs. CrPC