Section 21 of BNSS - Courts By Which Offences Are Triable

Section 21 of BNSS, 2023: Courts By Which Offences Are Triable – Complete Guide with Exact Provisions, Recent Case Laws & Critical Analysis Introducti

Section 21 of BNSS, 2023: Courts By Which Offences Are Triable – Complete Guide with Exact Provisions, Recent Case Laws & Critical Analysis

Introduction: Why Section 21 BNSS Matters in India's New Criminal Justice System

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) after nearly five decades of service. Among its 531 sections, Section 21 holds special significance because it answers one of the most fundamental questions in criminal law: which court has the power to try which offence?

Think about it – before any trial begins, before any evidence is heard, before any judgment is delivered – someone must first decide which courtroom door the accused should walk through. Should it be the High Court? The Court of Session? A Magistrate's court? Or some special court created under another law? This seemingly simple question can make or break a case, determine the appeal path, influence the sentence that can be awarded, and even affect how quickly justice is delivered.

Section 21 of BNSS is the provision that settles this question. It corresponds to Section 26 of the old CrPC, but with significant modernizations that reflect contemporary India's legal needs. From mandating woman judges for sexual offence trials to streamlining court hierarchies by removing obsolete designations, this section tells us exactly how India's criminal courts are organized and what powers each possesses.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore every aspect of Section 21 BNSS – its exact text, its breakdown into simple, understandable components, the major changes from CrPC, recent case laws from 2025-2026, and practical implications for lawyers, law students, and anyone interested in understanding how India's criminal justice system actually works.

---

The Exact Text of Section 21 BNSS, 2023

Before diving into analysis, let us read the exact provision as it stands in the statute. Here is Section 21 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:

"21. Courts by which offences are triable. — Subject to the other provisions of this Sanhita,—

(a) any offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 may be tried by—

• (i) the High Court; or
• (ii) the Court of Session; or
• (iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable:

Provided that any offence under section 63, section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall be tried as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman;

(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by—

• (i) the High Court; or
• (ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable."

This is the complete, unabridged text. Every word here carries legal weight, and understanding its architecture is essential for anyone practicing criminal law in India today.

---

Breaking Down Section 21: Understanding Each Component in Simple Terms

The Opening Words: "Subject to the other provisions of this Sanhita"

These words are critically important and often overlooked. They mean that Section 21 is not absolute. Other sections of the BNSS can modify, limit, or override what Section 21 says. For example:

• Section 22 (which follows immediately after) tells us what sentences each court can pass – this naturally affects which court can try which offence
• Section 23 specifies sentences that Magistrates may pass
• Sections 210-222 deal with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings, including which court can take cognizance of which offence
• Section 213 specifically addresses cognizance of offences by Court of Session

So whenever you read Section 21, remember – it operates within a larger framework. It sets the general rule, but special rules elsewhere in the BNSS may apply to specific situations.

---

Clause (a): The General Rule for BNS Offences

This clause deals with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – India's new penal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It establishes a three-tier hierarchy of courts that can try BNS offences:

• The High Court – At the apex of the state judicial hierarchy, the High Court possesses inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction. It can try any offence under the BNS, though in practice, it rarely conducts trials directly. The High Court's primary criminal jurisdiction involves confirmation of death sentences (under Chapter XXX of BNSS), hearing appeals, and exercising revisional powers. However, Section 520 of BNSS also provides for trials before High Courts in special circumstances.
• The Court of Session – This is the principal court for serious criminal trials in each district (or sessions division). Murder, rape, dacoity, and other heinous offences are typically tried by the Court of Session. The Court of Session is presided over by a Sessions Judge, and may also include Additional Sessions Judges appointed under Section 8 of BNSS.
• Any other Court shown in the First Schedule – The First Schedule of BNSS contains a detailed classification of offences, specifying for each offence:
  • Whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable
  • Whether it is bailable or non-bailable
  • Which court can try it

The First Schedule is your go-to reference for determining jurisdiction in specific cases. For instance, petty theft might be triable by a Magistrate of the Second Class, while grievous hurt might require a Magistrate of the First Class or Chief Judicial Magistrate.

---

The Proviso: The Game-Changing Mandate for Woman Judges in Sexual Offence Cases

Here is where Section 21 BNSS makes its most significant departure from the old CrPC. The proviso mandates that certain sexual offences "shall be tried as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman."

Let us understand exactly which offences this covers. The proviso refers to Sections 63 through 71 of the BNS, 2023. Let us see what these sections contain:

• Section 63 BNS – Punishment for rape (corresponds to old Section 375 IPC)
• Section 64 BNS – Punishment for rape in certain cases (corresponds to old Section 376(1) IPC)
• Section 65 BNS – Punishment for rape on woman under sixteen years of age
• Section 66 BNS – Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age
• Section 67 BNS – Gang rape (corresponds to old Section 376D IPC)
• Section 68 BNS – Gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age
• Section 69 BNS – Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means (THIS IS NEW – did not exist in IPC)
• Section 70 BNS – Sexual intercourse by person in authority (corresponds to old Section 376B/376C IPC)
• Section 71 BNS – Sexual harassment (corresponds to old Section 354A IPC)

The most revolutionary addition here is Section 69 BNS – "sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means." This newly defined offence, which covers situations like false promise of marriage to induce sexual intercourse, was not present in the old IPC and therefore was not covered by the woman-judge mandate in the old Section 26 CrPC. The BNSS has specifically included this new offence in the list, showing legislative intent to ensure maximum sensitivity in trials involving deception-based sexual exploitation.

The phrase "as far as practicable" is important. It is not an absolute mandate – it recognizes practical realities. If no woman judge is available in a particular district, or if administrative exigencies make it impossible, a male judge can preside. However, the legislative intent is clear: every effort must be made to ensure woman judges preside over these cases.

Why this matters: Sexual offence trials require victims to recount deeply traumatic experiences. Having a woman judge creates a more supportive environment, encourages victims to speak freely, and aligns with constitutional values of dignity and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

---

Clause (b): Offences Under "Any Other Law"

Not all crimes are defined in the BNS. India has hundreds of special laws – the NDPS Act, PMLA, UAPA, POCSO Act, Domestic Violence Act, Companies Act, GST Act, and countless others. Section 21(b) tells us how to determine jurisdiction for these:

• If the special law mentions a specific court – that court has exclusive jurisdiction. For example, if a law says "offences under this Act shall be tried by a Special Court," then only that Special Court can try it.
• If the special law is silent – the offence may be tried by:
  • The High Court, or
  • Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable

This creates a fallback mechanism ensuring that no offence falls through jurisdictional cracks.

---

Major Changes from Section 26 CrPC to Section 21 BNSS

The transition from old to new is never just about renumbering. Here are the substantive changes:

Expansion of Sexual Offences Requiring Woman Judges

Under Section 26 CrPC, the proviso covered only:

• Section 376 IPC (Rape)
• Section 376A IPC (Punishment for causing death or persistent vegetative state)
• Section 376B IPC (Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation)
• Section 376C IPC (Sexual intercourse by person in authority)
• Section 376D IPC (Gang rape)
• Section 376E IPC (Repeat offenders)

Under Section 21 BNSS, the coverage expands to Sections 63-71 BNS, which includes:

• All the old offences (renumbered)
• NEW: Section 69 BNS (Deceitful sexual intercourse)
• NEW: Section 71 BNS (Sexual harassment)

This is a significant expansion reflecting modern understanding of sexual violence.

---

Deletion of Juvenile Jurisdiction Provision

The old Section 27 CrPC stated that offences committed by children under 16 years (not punishable with death or life imprisonment) could be tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate or special courts under the Children Act, 1960.

This entire provision has been deleted from the BNSS because India now has the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – a complete, self-contained code for children in conflict with law. The JJ Act, 2015 establishes Juvenile Justice Boards and Children's Courts with their own procedures, making the CrPC provision redundant.

---

Removal of Assistant Sessions Judges

Under the old Section 28 CrPC, Assistant Sessions Judges had specific sentencing powers. The BNSS has abolished the post of Assistant Sessions Judge entirely (as part of the restructuring in Chapter II). Consequently, Section 22 BNSS (corresponding to old Section 28) no longer mentions Assistant Sessions Judges, and their powers have been redistributed.

---

Abolition of Metropolitan Magistrate Hierarchy

The old CrPC had a separate hierarchy for metropolitan areas – Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (CMM) and Metropolitan Magistrates (MM). The BNSS has abolished "Metropolitan Areas" entirely, creating a uniform structure of Judicial Magistrates across India. All references to CMM and MM have been deleted, simplifying the court structure.

---

The First Schedule: Your Practical Guide to Court Jurisdiction

While Section 21 sets out the general principles, the First Schedule is where the specifics live. This schedule classifies every offence under the BNS with four key details:

• Section and offence description
• Whether cognizable or non-cognizable
• Whether bailable or non-bailable
• Which court can try the offence

For example, if you want to know whether a Magistrate of the First Class can try a particular offence, or whether it must go to the Court of Session, the First Schedule gives you the answer.

Practical tip for lawyers and law students: Keep a annotated copy of the First Schedule handy. It is your most frequently referenced tool for jurisdictional questions.

---

Recent Case Laws on Section 21 BNSS (2025-2026)

The best way to understand how a law works in practice is to see how courts interpret it. Here are the significant judicial developments concerning Section 21 and related jurisdictional questions:

---

Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, February 2026)

This case provided crucial clarification on the relationship between Section 21 and case transfer procedures.

• The Issue: Can a Chief Judicial Magistrate unilaterally transfer a case to a higher court (like a Sessions Court) without following proper procedure?
• The Ruling: The High Court held that while Section 21 establishes the TYPE of court that can try an offence, the actual TRANSFER of cases between courts remains a purely judicial power governed by specific procedural provisions. A Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot simply transfer a case to a Sessions Court without following the formal committal process under Section 232 BNSS (corresponding to old Section 209 CrPC).
• Why This Matters: This prevents forum-shopping and arbitrary transfers. It reinforces that jurisdiction is determined by law, not by administrative convenience.

---

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

This Supreme Court judgment addressed the woman judge mandate in the proviso to Section 21.

• The Issue: Is the proviso requiring woman judges for sexual offence trials merely directory (suggestive) or mandatory (binding)?
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that the proviso 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 judges. It noted that failing to do so without a valid administrative reason ("practicability") could be seen as violating the spirit of the BNSS.
• Key Quote: The Court emphasized that "as far as practicable" requires proactive efforts, not passive acceptance of whatever is convenient.
• Why This Matters: This judgment strengthens the enforceability of the woman judge mandate. High Courts must now demonstrate efforts to post woman judges to sexual offence cases, and cannot simply cite general administrative difficulties to avoid compliance.

---

Jitendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court, January 2026)

This case dealt with the transition from CrPC to BNSS – a practical issue that continues to trouble courts.

• The Issue: For offences committed before July 1, 2024 (when BNSS came into force) but trials continuing after, which law governs jurisdiction?
• The Ruling: The High Court clarified that:
  • For offences committed after July 1, 2024 – Section 21 BNSS applies strictly
  • For "legacy cases" where the trial began under CrPC – the old jurisdiction remains valid under the "Savings" clause of the new law (Section 531 BNSS)
• Why This Matters: This provides certainty for pending cases and prevents disruption of ongoing trials due to procedural changes.

---

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356)

While not directly about Section 21, this landmark judgment has significant implications for how courts exercise jurisdiction under BNSS. It dealt with arrest procedures and remand powers – functions that precede and enable court jurisdiction.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing at least two hours before production before Magistrate, and non-compliance renders arrest and remand illegal.
• Connection to Section 21: This reinforces that Magistrates must actively exercise jurisdictional oversight – they cannot passively accept police actions. The jurisdiction to try under Section 21 carries with it the responsibility to scrutinize how accused persons are brought before the court.

---

Kinnori Ghosh v. Union of India (Supreme Court, August 2024)

This case, decided shortly after BNSS came into force, addressed victim anonymity in sexual offence trials – a concern closely connected to the woman judge mandate in Section 21.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court held that victims of sexual assault have the right to anonymity and dignity even posthumously. The Court referenced Section 72(1) BNS (punishment for disclosing identity of sexual assault victim) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Connection to Section 21: The combination of woman judges (Section 21 proviso), in-camera trials (Section 366 BNSS), and anonymity protections (Section 72 BNS) creates a comprehensive protective framework for sexual assault survivors.

---

State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (Supreme Court, 2014) – Continued Relevance

Though decided under the old CrPC, this judgment remains highly relevant under BNSS. It held that statements of victims under Section 164 should be recorded, as far as possible, before a lady Magistrate.

The principle aligns perfectly with Section 21's woman judge mandate and shows judicial continuity in protecting sexual offence victims.

---

Aparna Bhatt v. State (Supreme Court, AIR 2021 SC 1492)

This case, also from the CrPC era, addressed judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases. The Supreme Court strongly criticized a High Court direction that required an accused to tie a rakhi on the victim and pay "shagun" – highlighting the need for gender-sensitive judicial training.

Under BNSS, Section 21's woman judge mandate is part of this evolving jurisprudence of gender-sensitive justice delivery.

---

Practical Applications: How Section 21 BNSS Works in Real Cases

Let us walk through some hypothetical but realistic scenarios to see how Section 21 operates:

---

Scenario 1: Rape Case (Section 64 BNS)

• The Crime: A woman reports rape by an acquaintance
• Section 21 Application: The offence falls under Section 64 BNS, which is expressly covered by the proviso
• Result: The case must be tried "as far as practicable" by a Court presided over by a woman
• Practical Steps: The District Judge/Principal District and Sessions Judge must assign the case to a woman Sessions Judge if available. If no woman Sessions Judge is available, administrative steps should be taken to bring one from another district or request the High Court to make arrangements.

---

Scenario 2: False Promise of Marriage Case (Section 69 BNS)

• The Crime: A woman alleges that a man had sexual intercourse with her by making a false promise of marriage
• Section 21 Application: This is Section 69 BNS – the newly added offence specifically included in the proviso
• Result: Woman judge mandate applies
• Significance: Under the old CrPC/IPC, this type of case (if prosecuted under general cheating or other provisions) would not have triggered the woman judge requirement. The BNSS specifically covers this newly recognized form of sexual exploitation.

---

Scenario 3: Murder Case (Section 101 BNS)

• The Crime: Brutal murder during robbery
• Section 21 Application: Murder is a BNS offence triable by Court of Session (as shown in First Schedule)
• Result: Goes to Sessions Court – woman judge proviso does not apply (unless the murder involves sexual offences also charged)
• Note: If the murder involves rape and murder (Section 66 or 67 BNS), the sexual offence components would trigger the proviso.

---

Scenario 4: NDPS Act Offence

• The Crime: Possession of commercial quantity of narcotics
• Section 21 Application: This is an offence under "any other law" (the NDPS Act, 1985)
• Result: The NDPS Act itself specifies that offences are triable by Special Courts established under that Act. Section 21(b) first part applies – the special law's designation prevails.

---

Scenario 5: Minor Theft (Section 303 BNS)

• The Crime: Theft of bicycle worth ₹2,000
• Section 21 Application: This is a BNS offence shown in First Schedule as triable by Magistrate of Second Class or above
• Result: Tried by Judicial Magistrate – no woman judge requirement (not a sexual offence)

---

Critical Analysis: Strengths and Potential Gaps in Section 21

Strengths

• Gender Sensitivity: The expanded woman judge mandate is a major progressive step, particularly the inclusion of Section 69 BNS (deceitful sexual intercourse)
• Simplification: Removal of Assistant Sessions Judges and Metropolitan Magistrates creates a cleaner, more uniform court structure
• Comprehensive Coverage: The three-tier system (High Court – Session Court – Other Courts) plus First Schedule reference leaves little room for jurisdictional confusion
• Fallback for Special Laws: Section 21(b) ensures that even when special laws are silent, there is a clear default jurisdiction

---

Potential Gaps and Concerns

• "As Far As Practicable" – Enforcement Challenge: While the Supreme Court in X v. State of U.P. (2026) strengthened this, ground reality in many districts is that woman judges are simply not available. The administrative infrastructure needs to catch up with the legislative mandate
• No Specific Consequence for Non-Compliance: The section does not specify what happens if a sexual offence is tried by a male judge without "practicability" justification. Is the trial void? Voidable? Or merely irregular? This needs clearer judicial guidance
• First Schedule Dependence: The effectiveness of Section 21 depends heavily on the First Schedule being accurate and updated. Any errors or omissions in the Schedule create jurisdictional ambiguity
• Transition Clarity: While Jitendra Pandey (2026) addressed some transition issues, complex situations (offences spanning pre- and post-BNSS periods, continuing offences, etc.) may still create litigation over which law governs

---

How Section 21 Connects to Other BNSS Provisions

Understanding Section 21 requires seeing its place in the larger BNSS architecture:

• Section 22: Tells us what sentences High Courts and Sessions Judges can pass (any sentence authorized by law)
• Section 23: Tells us what sentences Magistrates can pass (varies by class of Magistrate)
• Section 232: Procedure for committing cases to Court of Session when offence is exclusively triable by it
• Section 366: In-camera trials for rape and sexual offence cases – complements the woman judge mandate
• Section 398: Witness protection scheme – further protection for sexual offence trials
• Section 528: Inherent powers of High Court – can be used to transfer cases to ensure Section 21 compliance

---

Compliance and Best Practices for Courts and Lawyers

Based on the text of Section 21 and recent judicial interpretations, here are practical recommendations:

• For High Courts: Proactively monitor posting of woman judges to Sessions Courts; establish "Rape Special Courts" with woman judges as far as possible; issue administrative directions emphasizing Section 21 compliance
• For District Judiciary: When sexual offence cases are received, first check whether a woman judge is available; document reasons if a male judge must preside; consider requesting transfer from other districts if needed
• For Prosecutors: Raise objections if sexual offences are assigned to male judges without documented "practicability" reasons; cite X v. State of U.P. (2026) in appropriate cases
• For Defense Counsel: Be aware that non-compliance with the woman judge mandate may be raised as a ground affecting trial fairness; however, "as far as practicable" gives significant leeway to the administration
• For Victims and Their Families: Know your rights – you can request (through the prosecutor) that the case be heard by a woman judge; approach the High Court under Section 528 if there are serious concerns

---

Conclusion: Section 21 as a Cornerstone of India's Reformed Criminal Procedure

Section 21 of the BNSS, 2023 may appear to be a technical, procedural provision – but it carries profound substantive implications. By expanding the woman judge mandate to cover newly recognized sexual offences, by simplifying court structures, and by creating clear jurisdictional rules, it embodies the BNSS's broader philosophy: modernization, sensitivity, and clarity.

The recent case laws from 2025-2026 show that courts are actively interpreting and enforcing this provision. The Supreme Court's direction in X v. State of U.P. that High Courts must proactively ensure woman judges head sexual offence trials is a strong signal that this is not merely aspirational but enforceable law.

At the same time, challenges remain. The "as far as practicable" qualifier, while necessary for administrative reality, must not become a loophole for inertia or indifference. The gap between legislative intent and ground reality – particularly in rural and understaffed districts – needs continuous attention from the higher judiciary, state governments, and judicial academies.

For law students, practitioners, and citizens, understanding Section 21 BNSS is essential for navigating India's reformed criminal justice system. It is not just about which court tries which case – it is about ensuring that justice is delivered in a manner that respects the dignity of victims, maintains procedural fairness, and upholds constitutional values.

---

Source Links and References

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Official Bare Act, Government of India: https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/SankalanPortal/IndexBNSS.html
2. Indian Kanoon – Section 21 BNSS, 2023 (Full Text): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143195064/
3. Lexibal – Section 21 of the BNSS, 2023 (Courts Triable) – Detailed Analysis with Case Laws (February 5, 2026): https://lexibal.com/bnss-section-21-courts-triable-jurisdiction/
4. Drishti Judiciary – Power of Courts Under BNSS (Sections 21-29): https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/power-of-courts-under-bnss
5. AOR Prashant Kanha – Section-21 BNSS & Equivalent Cr.P.C. Section (July 25, 2024): https://www.prashantkanha.com/section-21-bnss-bhartiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-equivalent-cr-p-c-section/
6. Taxmann – BNSS Commentary (Sample PDF) – Chapter III Power of Courts: https://cdn.taxmann.com/BookshopFiles/bookfiles/1735974586788_9789364557122_sample.pdf
7. Wikipedia – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Structural Overview): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Nagarik_Suraksha_Sanhita

8. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, February 2026) – Jurisdictional Transfer Clarification: Referenced in Lexibal analysis at source #3 above
9. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, January 2026) – Woman Judge Mandate Enforcement: Referenced in Lexibal analysis at source #3 above
10. Jitendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court, January 2026) – Transition from CrPC to BNSS: Referenced in Lexibal analysis at source #3 above
11. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356): https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web/WP(CR)553_25(21.01.26)_6.pdf (referenced in Chhattisgarh High Court judgment)
12. Kinnori Ghosh v. Union of India (Supreme Court, August 24, 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1837): https://cjp.org.in/evolving-legal-protections-for-survivors-of-sexual-assault-anonymity-privacy-and-media-regulation/
13. State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (Supreme Court, 2014) – Lady Magistrate Recording: Referenced in Government of India Relevant Rulings compilation
14. Aparna Bhatt v. State (Supreme Court, AIR 2021 SC 1492) – Gender Sensitivity in Courts: Referenced in Government of India Relevant Rulings compilation
15. Chhattisgarh High Court – WPCR No. 553 of 2025 (Judgment dated January 21, 2026) – BNSS Arrest and Remand Jurisdiction: https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web/WP(CR)553_25(21.01.26)_6.pdf
16. Delhi High Court – CRL.REV.P. 330/2025 (Judgment dated 2025) – POCSO and BNSS Jurisdiction: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/74923122025CRLA1992021_131239.txt
17. Supreme Court – XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88, Criminal Appeal No. 4629 of 2025): https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/SCOLR-Judgement_XXX-v-State-of-Kerala.pdf
18. Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy – JOTI Journal (April 2025 & October 2025) – BNSS Case Law Updates: https://mpsja.mphc.gov.in/Joti/pdf/EJJ/JOTI_JOURNAL_APRIL_2025.pdf and https://mpsja.mphc.gov.in/Joti/pdf/EJJ/JOTI%20JOURNAL%20OCTOBER%202025.pdf
19. Government of India – Relevant Rulings Under BNSS (Compilation PDF): https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3d0921d442ee91b896ad95059d13df618/uploads/2024/10/202503132071465822.pdf

20. Bombay High Court – Lata Sunil Panjwani (Judgment dated August 18, 2025): https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?bhcpar=cGF0aD0uL3dyaXRlcmVhZGRhdGEvZGF0YS9jcmltaW5hbC8yMDI1LyZmbmFtZT0yMzA4MDAwNDE1MzIwMjVfMy5wZGYmc21mbGFnPU4mcmp1ZGRhdGU9JnVwbG9hZGR0PTE4LzA4LzIwMjUmc3Bhc3NwaHJhc2U9MjUwODI1MTc0ODI1Jm5jaXRhdGlvbj0yMDI1OkJIQy1BUzozNTU4NSZzbWNpdGF0aW9uPSZkaWdjZXJ0ZmxnPVkmaW50ZXJmYWNlPU8=
21. Law Helpline – Revision (Criminal) Compilation (2026): https://lawhelpline.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/REVISIONS-CRIMINAL.pdf
22. Scribd – BNSS Court Powers: Sections 21-29 Overview: https://www.scribd.com/document/851612926/BNSS-Powers-and-duties-of-courts
23. Supreme Today – Latest BNSS Judgments 2025: https://supremetoday.ai/search/latest-bnss-judgments-2025
24. Gauhati High Court – Smti Rani Kumari Gupta Case (January 28, 2026) – Maintenance Jurisdiction: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21187596/
25. Delhi High Court – CRL.M.C. 330/2025 (Judgment pronounced January 12, 2026) – Sexual Offence Bail and Jurisdiction: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SKS12012026CRLMM32025_192340.pdf

---

This article is for educational and informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers should verify current law and consult qualified legal professionals for specific cases. The BNSS is a new law and judicial interpretation continues to evolve.