Section 7 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides the geographical and administrative framework for the criminal justice system in India. It defines how a state is partitioned into manageable units for the purpose of judicial administration. This structural organization is essential for determining the best visible jurisdiction for trials, investigations, and the filing of legal documents.
Under the BNSS, the concept of “territorial divisions” ensures that every citizen has a high level of access to a court within their specific locality, thereby streamlining the delivery of justice.
The Hierarchy of Territorial Divisions
The BNSS establishes a three-tier territorial structure to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Criminal Courts. This system is designed to provide a best-fit administrative model for both large and small states.
1. Sessions Division (Sub-section 1)
A Sessions Division is the largest unit of criminal administration within a State.
- The Rule: Every State must either be a single sessions division or be divided into multiple sessions divisions.
- Jurisdictional Link: Each sessions division is presided over by a Court of Session (as established in Section 6).
2. Districts (Sub-section 1)
For the purposes of the Sanhita, every sessions division must be a district or consist of multiple districts.
- Significance: The district is the primary unit for both judicial (Judicial Magistrates) and executive (Executive Magistrates) functions.
- Administrative Clarity: This ensures that the judicial boundaries align with the general administrative boundaries of the state, making the legal process more visible to the public.
3. Sub-divisions (Sub-section 3)
A district may be further divided into sub-divisions.
- Purpose: This decentralization allows for Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrates and Sub-divisional Executive Magistrates to operate closer to the grassroots level, providing top-tier convenience for litigants.
Power to Alter Limits (Sub-sections 2 and 3)
The BNSS provides the State Government with the flexibility to adapt to changing demographics and administrative needs. However, to maintain the high standards of judicial independence, this power is not absolute.
- Consultation with High Court: The State Government can alter the limits or the number of sessions divisions, districts, or sub-divisions only after consultation with the High Court.
- Ensuring Fairness: This consultation ensures that any change in geography does not negatively impact the best interests of the judiciary or the accessibility of courts.
Continuity and Transition (Sub-section 4)
To prevent a legal vacuum during the transition from the old CrPC to the new BNSS, Sub-section 4 provides a “Deeming Clause.”
- The Provision: All sessions divisions, districts, and sub-divisions that existed at the time the BNSS came into force (July 1, 2024) are deemed to have been formed under this new section.
- Why it Matters: This ensures that ongoing trials and the jurisdiction of current courts remain proven and valid without the need for fresh government notifications immediately upon the Sanhita’s commencement.
Rationale for Territorial Division – Section 7
The territorial division of a state serves several high-priority legal objectives:
- Convenience of Parties: It prevents victims and witnesses from traveling long distances to reach a court.
- Ease of Police Administration: Police stations are linked to specific local jurisdictions, ensuring a best visible chain of command for filing police reports (Section 193).
- Speedy Trial: By distributing cases across multiple districts and sub-divisions, the system prevents the “bottlenecking” of cases in a single central court.
Practical Application for Law Students and Lawyers
In practice, determining the correct territorial division is a prime requirement for:
- Filing a Suit: Determining the local jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(n).
- Appeals: Knowing which Court of Session handles appeals from a particular Judicial Magistrate.
- Bail Applications: Filing before the correct Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the district where the offence was committed.
Following these territorial rules is the best way to avoid “Jurisdictional Errors” that could otherwise lead to the dismissal of a case. (Section 7)
