Section 32 of the BNSS, 2023 (Aid to Private Persons Executing Warrants)

Section 32 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides a legal foundation for the public to assist private individuals who are authorized to execute an arrest warrant. This section corresponds to Section 38 of the old CrPC.

While we typically associate warrants with the police, the law allows a Magistrate to direct a warrant to a private person in exceptional circumstances (such as when a police officer is not immediately available to apprehend a dangerous fugitive). Section 32 ensures that such an individual has the proven backing of the community to fulfill their legal mandate, making the execution of justice visible and effective.

1. Statutory Provisions and Conditions

For aid under Section 32 to be legally valid and protected, two specific conditions must be met:

• Proximity (“Near at hand”): The person to whom the warrant is directed must be physically present or nearby during the attempt to execute the warrant.
• Active Execution: That person must be actively engaged in the process of executing the warrant at the time the aid is provided.

The Logic: This prevents random citizens from taking the law into their own hands. They can only assist if they are acting under the immediate supervision and presence of the person legally authorized by the court.

2. Practical Application: An Optimized Example

Imagine a scenario in 2026 where a Magistrate directs a warrant to a Village Headman (a person other than a police officer) to arrest a local absconder.

1. The Headman identifies the suspect in a crowded market.
2. The suspect resists and tries to flee.
3. Nearby shopkeepers and citizens step in to help the Headman restrain the suspect.

Legal Standing: Under Section 32, the shopkeepers are legally protected. Their assistance is considered a high-value contribution to the judicial process, provided the Headman was “near at hand” and “acting in execution” of that warrant.

3. Relevant Case Laws & Legal Precedents (2025–2026)

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

This judgment continues to be a prime reference for interpreting the administrative powers within the BNSS.

• The Ruling: The Court emphasized that while the BNSS encourages public participation (as seen in Sections 31, 32, and 33), such participation must never bypass due process. The court noted that Section 32 is a “supplementary power.” It does not grant the public an independent right to arrest; it only grants the right to aid an authorized person.

2. State of Karnataka v. [Respondent] (2025)

• The Issue: A citizen was sued for assault after helping a bank official (authorized by a warrant in a financial crime) to restrain a debtor.
• The Ruling: The High Court held that Section 32 of the BNSS provides a statutory shield. If the person providing aid acts in good faith to help an authorized individual who is “near at hand,” their actions do not constitute an offence. This is a best visible example of how the law protects those assisting the machinery of justice.

4. Summary of Comparison: BNSS vs. CrPC

5. Rationale for Retention

The BNSS has retained this provision without change because it serves a top-tier purpose in rural or remote areas where police presence might be thin. It empowers the judiciary to use reliable local citizens to execute its orders, ensuring that no criminal can escape justice simply due to a lack of immediate police resources.