Section 407 BNSS – Power of High Court to Transfer Cases: A Complete Guide for Every Indian Citizen in 2026
Introduction: Why Section 407 BNSS Should Matter to You
Imagine this. You are fighting a criminal case in a local court. Day after day, you notice something disturbing. The judge seems biased against you. Witnesses are being threatened. The opposing party has deep political connections in that district. You feel helpless. Your lawyer tells you that getting a fair trial in this court is nearly impossible. What do you do? Do you give up? Do you accept an unfair verdict? Or is there a legal way out?
This is exactly where Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) becomes your most powerful weapon. It is not some obscure legal provision buried in a thick law book. It is a living, breathing shield that stands between you and a compromised trial. It is the law that says if you cannot get justice in one court, the High Court has the power to move your case to another court where fairness is possible.
On July 1, 2024, India woke up to a new criminal justice era. Three new laws replaced the colonial-era codes that had governed us for over a century. The Indian Penal Code gave way to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). And the Indian Evidence Act became the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Among these transformative changes, Section 407 of BNSS stands out as one of the most critical protections for ensuring fair trial and impartial justice.
In this comprehensive guide, we will walk through every single aspect of Section 407 BNSS. We will read the law in plain language. We will understand what it means in real life. We will explore how it connects to other sections of BNSS, what the Supreme Court has said about it, and what you should do if you ever need to file a transfer petition. Whether you are a law student preparing for judiciary exams, a practicing advocate, or simply a concerned citizen who wants to know your rights, this article has been written for you. So let's dive deep into the world of Section 407 BNSS and understand why it is one of the most important legal protections you never knew you had.
📚 Related Reading: Before we dive into Section 407, make sure you understand the basics of arrest procedures. Read our detailed guide on Section 35 of BNSS – Arrest Rules, Notice Before Arrest, and Your Rights in 2026 to understand how the police must follow proper procedures before any case even reaches the courts.
What Is Section 407 of BNSS? Reading the Law in Simple Words
Before we explore the deeper meaning and implications, let's look at the exact text of Section 407 as it appears in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Understanding the actual words of the law is the first step to understanding your rights.
Section 407 reads as follows:
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it should be transferred for trial to another Court subordinate to it, the High Court may order the transfer of such case.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 409, or the powers of the Sessions Judge under section 410.
That's it. Three subsections. Barely a few lines. But these few lines carry the weight of constitutional fair trial guarantees, judicial oversight, and the fundamental right of every person in India to get justice without bias or prejudice. Let's break this down piece by piece so that anyone can understand what it really means.
Subsection (1): The Core Power of Transfer
The first subsection says that whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that a case pending in a court subordinate to it should be transferred for trial to another court subordinate to it, the High Court may order the transfer of such case.
The word "whenever" is crucial here. It means the High Court can exercise this power at any stage of the proceedings. Not just at the beginning. Not just before evidence is recorded. At any point when the court feels that justice demands a transfer.
The phrase "made to appear" means the High Court does not need conclusive proof of bias or prejudice. It only needs to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fair trial is not possible in the current court. This is a lower threshold than proving actual bias, making the provision more accessible to ordinary litigants.
The words "may order the transfer" give the High Court discretion. It is not mandatory for the High Court to transfer every case that is brought before it. The court must apply its judicial mind and decide whether the circumstances truly warrant a transfer. This discretion prevents frivolous transfer petitions from being automatically granted.
Subsection (2): How Can the High Court Act?
The second subsection tells us three ways in which the High Court can initiate the transfer process:
- On the report of the lower court: Sometimes, the judge presiding over a case himself feels that the case should be transferred. Maybe the judge has a personal conflict of interest. Maybe there is local pressure that makes it impossible to deliver justice. In such cases, the lower court can report to the High Court recommending a transfer.
- On the application of a party interested: This is the most common route. If you are a party to the case and you genuinely believe that you cannot get a fair trial in the current court, you can file an application (called a transfer petition) before the High Court seeking transfer of the case.
- On its own initiative: The High Court has the power to act suo motu (on its own motion) if it comes to its notice through any source that a case needs to be transferred. This is a rare but powerful tool that shows the High Court's role as the guardian of justice.
Subsection (3): What This Section Does Not Affect
The third subsection clarifies that Section 407 does not interfere with two other important powers:
- Orders of Government under Section 409: The government has the power to make general or special orders regarding the distribution of business among courts. Section 407 does not take away this executive power.
- Powers of the Sessions Judge under Section 410: The Sessions Judge also has limited transfer powers within his jurisdiction. Section 407 does not override those powers.
How Section 407 BNSS Replaced Section 407 of the Old CrPC
To truly appreciate Section 407, we need to understand what came before it. Before the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, the corresponding provision was Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Let's compare the two to see what changed and what stayed the same.
Section 407 of the CrPC, 1973 read as follows:
📜 Section 407 CrPC, 1973:
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it should be transferred for trial to another Court subordinate to it, the High Court may order the transfer of such case.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be affected by any order of Government under section 409, or the powers of the Sessions Judge under section 410.
If you compare this word for word with Section 407 BNSS, you will notice something remarkable. The language is almost identical. The powers are the same. The procedures are the same. So what changed?
The key difference lies in the broader context. The BNSS did not just carry over Section 407 into the new code in isolation. It placed Section 407 within a more comprehensive framework of judicial oversight and fair trial protections that include new sections and modernized procedures. Additionally, the BNSS reflects the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence on fair trial rights, impartial justice, and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Under the BNSS, Section 407 now operates alongside:
- Section 6 – Classes of Criminal Courts (defining the hierarchy within which transfers happen)
- Section 8 – Court of Session (establishing the highest criminal trial court at district level)
- Section 35 – When police may arrest without warrant (the starting point of criminal proceedings)
- Section 47 – Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and right to bail
- Section 57 – Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or officer in charge
- Section 96 – Search warrants (judicial oversight over evidence gathering)
Together, these sections create a web of protections that makes Section 407 more meaningful and enforceable than it ever was under the old CrPC.
The Constitutional Foundation: Why Section 407 Exists
Section 407 of BNSS is not just a procedural rule created by Parliament. It is deeply rooted in the Constitution of India, specifically in Article 21 and the principles of fair trial. Understanding this constitutional foundation is essential because it shows why Section 407 is not optional and why its violation can have serious legal consequences.
Article 21 of the Constitution states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a fair trial is an essential component of Article 21. In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. Any procedure that denies a person a fair trial violates Article 21.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court emphasized that speedy justice is a fundamental right. If a case is deliberately delayed in one court, transferring it to another court where it can be heard faster protects this right.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial includes the right to an impartial judge, an unbiased court, and a proceeding free from external pressure or influence.
Section 407, therefore, serves as the bridge between the Constitution's promise of fair trial and the actual practice of law in lower courts. Without Section 407, Article 21 would remain a beautiful but unenforceable promise. With Section 407, it becomes a living, breathing protection for every litigant who faces bias, prejudice, or unfairness in a subordinate court.
📚 Related Reading: Understanding the court hierarchy is essential to know where your case can be transferred. Read our detailed guide on Section 8 of BNSS – Court of Session: A Comprehensive Guide to India's District-Level Criminal Courts to understand the structure within which Section 407 operates.
Grounds on Which the High Court Can Transfer a Case Under Section 407
Now that we understand the constitutional foundation, let's dive deep into the practical grounds on which the High Court can exercise its transfer power under Section 407.
Ground 1: Reasonable Apprehension of Bias or Prejudice
This is the most common ground for seeking transfer. If a party can show that there is a reasonable apprehension that the judge is biased or prejudiced against them, the High Court may order a transfer. It is important to note that the party does not need to prove actual bias. Reasonable apprehension is enough.
What constitutes reasonable apprehension? The Supreme Court has laid down several indicators:
- The judge has made prejudicial remarks against the party during proceedings
- The judge has a personal or professional relationship with the opposing party
- The judge has shown hostility or undue favoritism in court
- The judge has pre-judged the case before hearing all evidence
- There is a history of the judge consistently ruling against a particular community or class of persons
Ground 2: Threats to Witnesses or Parties
If witnesses or parties are being threatened, intimidated, or coerced in a particular locality, the High Court can transfer the case to another district where the witnesses can depose freely without fear. This ground is particularly important in:
- Cases involving organized crime or mafia
- Cases with political overtones
- Cases involving powerful local figures
- Cases where the accused has a history of witness tampering
Ground 3: Local Excitement or Communal Tension
If a case has generated such strong local sentiment that a fair trial is impossible in that district, the High Court can order a transfer. This often happens in:
- Sensitive communal cases
- High-profile murder cases with media frenzy
- Cases involving caste-based violence
- Cases where public sentiment has been whipped up against one party
Ground 4: Convenience of Parties and Witnesses
Sometimes, the High Court may transfer a case simply because the convenience of parties and witnesses demands it. For example:
- All witnesses reside in another district
- The accused is too ill to travel long distances
- The victim is a minor who cannot be subjected to long travel
- The evidence is located in another jurisdiction
Ground 5: Avoidance of Delay
If a case is languishing in one court due to heavy pendency, while another court in the same jurisdiction has the capacity to hear it faster, the High Court may transfer the case to ensure speedy justice. This ground aligns with the Supreme Court's repeated emphasis on the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21.
Ground 6: Conflict of Interest of the Presiding Officer
If the presiding judge has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the case, the High Court can order a transfer. This includes:
- The judge is a relative of one of the parties
- The judge has financial interest in the subject matter
- The judge was previously a lawyer for one of the parties in the same case
- The judge has made public statements indicating pre-conceived notions about the case
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on Transfer of Cases Under Section 407
The Indian judiciary has been the strongest guardian of fair trial rights. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted and enforced the principles underlying Section 407 through numerous landmark judgments. Let's explore the most important ones.
⚖️ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
This is perhaps the most important case on the right to fair trial in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 guarantees not just life and liberty, but also the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, including the right to a fair and reasonable procedure. The Court emphasized that any procedure that denies a person a fair trial is unconstitutional. This judgment laid the foundation for all subsequent transfer petitions, establishing that the right to an impartial tribunal is a fundamental right.
⚖️ Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) 1 SCC 298
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that speedy justice is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that the Indian judicial system was plagued by inordinate delays, and that undertrial prisoners were languishing in jails for years without their cases being heard. This judgment reinforced the ground of "avoidance of delay" under Section 407, making it clear that transfer for speedy disposal is not just a matter of convenience but a constitutional imperative.
⚖️ Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
The Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial includes the right to an impartial judge and an unbiased court. The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings, emphasizing that any real likelihood of bias must be addressed through transfer or other appropriate remedies. This judgment is directly relevant to Section 407 because it establishes that the right to an impartial tribunal is non-negotiable.
⚖️ K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767
In this case, the Supreme Court held that transfer of cases should not be ordered routinely or casually. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 407 is discretionary and must be exercised with caution. The party seeking transfer must make out a strong prima facie case showing that a fair trial is not possible in the current court. This judgment prevents the misuse of Section 407 for forum shopping or delaying tactics.
⚖️ Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992) Supp (1) SCC 96
The Supreme Court held that the power to transfer cases under Section 407 is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly. The Court observed that frequent transfers undermine the dignity of subordinate courts and disrupt the judicial process. This judgment established the principle that transfer should be the exception, not the rule, and should be ordered only when there is a genuine and compelling reason.
⚖️ Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the test for transfer is not actual bias but reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court held that even if the judge is personally impartial, if a reasonable person would apprehend bias based on the circumstances, transfer may be warranted. This lowered the threshold for transfer petitions and made Section 407 more accessible to ordinary litigants.
How Section 407 Connects to Other Sections of BNSS
Section 407 does not operate in isolation. It is part of a comprehensive web of judicial oversight and fair trial protections under the BNSS. Understanding these connections is essential for a complete picture of your rights.
Section 6 BNSS: Classes of Criminal Courts
Section 6 defines the hierarchy of criminal courts in every state. It establishes the Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of First Class, Judicial Magistrates of Second Class, and Executive Magistrates. Section 407 operates within this hierarchy, allowing the High Court to transfer cases between these subordinate courts. Without Section 6 defining the court structure, Section 407 would have no framework within which to operate.
Section 8 BNSS: Court of Session
Section 8 establishes the Court of Session as the highest criminal trial court at the district level. The Court of Session handles the most serious offences. Section 407 allows the High Court to transfer cases between different Sessions Courts, ensuring that even the most serious cases can be moved when justice demands it.
Section 22 BNSS: Sentencing Powers of High Courts and Sessions Judges
Section 22 defines the sentencing powers of High Courts and Sessions Judges. It specifies that any death sentence passed by a Sessions Judge must be confirmed by the High Court. This provision reminds us that the High Court exercises continuous oversight over subordinate courts, and Section 407 is one of the tools through which this oversight is exercised.
Section 35 BNSS: When Police May Arrest Without Warrant
Section 35 defines the circumstances under which a police officer can arrest without a warrant. It is the starting point of criminal proceedings. If the arrest itself is flawed or biased, the entire subsequent proceedings may be compromised. Section 407 provides a remedy when proceedings initiated under Section 35 lead to a trial that cannot be fair in the original court.
Section 47 BNSS: Person Arrested to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest
Section 47 ensures that every arrested person is informed of the grounds of arrest and their right to bail. This transparency at the arrest stage is connected to Section 407 because if the arrest was made without proper grounds, the subsequent trial proceedings may be tainted, and transfer may be necessary to ensure fairness.
Section 57 BNSS: Person Arrested to Be Taken Before Magistrate
Section 57 requires the police to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. This ensures early judicial oversight. Section 407 extends this oversight by allowing the High Court to intervene when the lower court proceedings themselves become unfair or compromised.
Section 96 BNSS: Search Warrants
Section 96 governs the issuance of search warrants by courts. It ensures that searches are conducted under judicial supervision. If evidence is gathered through improper searches in one district, Section 407 can be used to transfer the case to another court where the evidence can be evaluated impartially.
📚 Related Reading: Understanding search warrants is crucial because evidence gathered improperly can taint an entire case. Read our detailed guide on Section 96 of BNSS – Search Warrants: Everything You Need to Know About Judicial Oversight of Searches to understand how courts protect your privacy during investigations.
Practical Scenarios: How Section 407 Works in Real Life
Let's look at some practical scenarios to understand how Section 407 operates in the real world.
🎬 Scenario 1: Political Bias in a Small Town Court
Rajesh, a local businessman, is falsely accused of fraud by a powerful politician's son. The case is filed in the district court of the politician's hometown. During the first few hearings, the judge makes openly hostile remarks against Rajesh, calls him a "habitual offender" before any evidence is presented, and denies every application filed by Rajesh's lawyer while granting every request made by the prosecution. Rajesh's lawyer files a transfer petition under Section 407 before the High Court, citing reasonable apprehension of bias. The High Court examines the court records, finds merit in the petition, and transfers the case to a neighboring district where the judge has no connection to the parties. Rajesh finally gets a fair hearing.
🎬 Scenario 2: Witness Intimidation in a Murder Case
Priya is the sole eyewitness to a murder committed by a local gang leader. The case is being tried in the district where the gang operates. Priya and her family receive death threats. Two other witnesses have already turned hostile after being threatened. The prosecution files a transfer petition under Section 407, arguing that a fair trial is impossible in the current district because witnesses cannot depose freely. The High Court transfers the case to another district 200 kilometers away, where the gang has no influence. Priya testifies without fear, and the accused is convicted.
🎬 Scenario 3: Communal Tension in a Sensitive Case
A case of rioting between two communities is being tried in a district where tensions are still high. The local bar association has passed a resolution boycotting one party's lawyer. The judge has received threatening letters from both communities. The High Court takes suo motu cognizance of the situation under Section 407(2) and transfers the case to a neutral district where communal passions have cooled down. The trial proceeds peacefully, and justice is delivered without violence.
🎬 Scenario 4: Convenience of an Elderly Witness
An 85-year-old woman is the main witness in a property dispute case that has turned criminal. The case is pending in a court 300 kilometers from her home. She is too frail to travel such a long distance. Her lawyer files a transfer petition under Section 407, arguing that the convenience of the witness demands transfer to a court near her residence. The High Court transfers the case to the local court in her district, where she can testify without enduring a grueling journey.
🎬 Scenario 5: Speedy Justice for an Undertrial Prisoner
Mohan has been in jail as an undertrial for three years. His case is pending in a court that has a backlog of 5,000 cases. The judge is hearing only one criminal case per week due to administrative duties. Mohan's lawyer files a transfer petition under Section 407, arguing that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is being violated. The High Court transfers the case to a court with a lighter caseload, where the trial is completed within six months, and Mohan is acquitted for lack of evidence.
Common Misconceptions About Section 407 of BNSS
There are several misconceptions about Section 407 that need to be cleared up.
❌ Misconception 1: "I Can Get My Case Transferred Just Because I Don't Like the Judge"
✅ Reality: Disliking a judge or disagreeing with their interim orders is not enough for transfer. You must show a reasonable apprehension of bias or other compelling grounds. The High Court will not transfer a case merely because a party is unhappy with the judge's rulings.
❌ Misconception 2: "Transfer Is My Right, Not a Discretion of the High Court"
✅ Reality: Section 407 uses the word "may" — not "shall." The High Court has discretion. Even if you have valid grounds, the court may refuse transfer if it feels the apprehension is not reasonable or if transfer would cause greater injustice.
❌ Misconception 3: "I Can Use Transfer to Delay the Case"
✅ Reality: The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against using transfer petitions as dilatory tactics. If the High Court finds that your transfer petition is filed merely to delay proceedings, it may dismiss the petition with costs and even impose penalties.
❌ Misconception 4: "Only the Accused Can File a Transfer Petition"
✅ Reality: Any party interested can file a transfer petition. This includes the prosecution, the victim, the complainant, or any other party with a legitimate interest in the outcome of the case.
❌ Misconception 5: "Transfer Means the Case Starts from Zero"
✅ Reality: When a case is transferred, it continues from the stage it had reached in the previous court. All evidence already recorded is sent to the new court. The trial does not start afresh unless the new court specifically orders it for compelling reasons.
What to Do If You Need to File a Transfer Petition Under Section 407
If you or someone you know is facing an unfair trial and needs to file a transfer petition under Section 407, here are the steps you can take.
Step 1: Consult a Competent Lawyer
Transfer petitions are complex legal documents. They require careful drafting, precise legal arguments, and supporting evidence. Do not attempt to file one without a lawyer who has experience in High Court practice.
Step 2: Gather Evidence of Bias or Unfairness
Document everything that supports your claim. This may include:
- Court orders showing prejudicial remarks by the judge
- Witness statements about threats or intimidation
- Media reports showing local excitement or communal tension
- Medical records showing inability to travel long distances
- Case statistics showing inordinate delay in the current court
Step 3: Draft the Transfer Petition
The petition must clearly state:
- The case number and court where it is pending
- The grounds for transfer with specific facts
- The court to which transfer is sought (or a request that the High Court decide the appropriate court)
- Supporting affidavits and documents
- Legal arguments based on Section 407 and relevant case law
Step 4: File Before the High Court
The petition must be filed in the High Court that has jurisdiction over the subordinate court where the case is pending. The filing fee and procedural requirements vary from state to state, so check the local rules.
Step 5: Argue Before the High Court
Your lawyer will present oral arguments before the High Court. The opposing party will also have a chance to argue against transfer. The High Court will then pass an order either allowing or dismissing the petition.
Step 6: If Transfer Is Granted, Ensure Smooth Transition
Once the High Court orders transfer, ensure that:
- All case records are sent to the new court promptly
- The new court is informed of the stage at which the case had reached
- Your lawyer appears before the new court on the first date
- Witnesses are informed of the new venue
📚 Related Reading: If your case involves arrest procedures that may have been flawed, understanding your rights at the arrest stage is crucial. Read our detailed guide on Section 38 of BNSS – Your Right to Meet a Lawyer During Police Interrogation to understand how legal representation protects you from the very beginning of criminal proceedings.
The Broader Significance of Section 407 in India's Criminal Justice System
Section 407 of BNSS is far more than a procedural rule tucked away in a legal code. It is a guardian of fair trial, a shield against judicial bias, and a beacon of hope for anyone who finds themselves in a court where justice seems impossible. It embodies the fundamental principle that no person's right to a fair trial can be compromised by local prejudice, political pressure, or institutional bias.
This provision ensures that the immense power of the High Court is used to protect the weakest litigants. It forces the judicial system to act transparently, to create accountability at every level, and to treat every litigant with dignity and respect. It connects the constitutional promise of Article 21 to the ground reality of district courts and sessions courts across India.
For every citizen, understanding Section 407 is not just an academic exercise. It is a matter of empowerment. When you know that you can challenge a biased court, when you know that the High Court can move your case to a neutral forum, when you know that justice is not limited to the court where your case was first filed, you are no longer a passive victim of the system. You are an informed citizen who can assert your rights and demand fairness.
The Indian criminal justice system is far from perfect. Delays, backlogs, and instances of bias still occur. But provisions like Section 407 remind us that the law, when properly understood and enforced, can be a powerful force for good. It reminds us that even in the most difficult cases, the light of judicial protection is never far away.
As India moves forward with its new criminal laws under BNSS, BNS, and BSA, the principles underlying Section 407 will continue to be relevant, vital, and non-negotiable. They represent the eternal struggle between local power and individual rights, and in that struggle, Section 407 stands firmly on the side of justice.
Conclusion: Know Your Rights, Protect Your Fair Trial
Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is one of the most important legal protections available to every person in India. It ensures that no trial happens in a compromised court, that no litigant is forced to accept bias as their fate, and that the fundamental right to a fair trial is respected at every stage of criminal proceedings.
Whether you are a student, a professional, a business owner, or a homemaker, knowing Section 407 can one day save you or someone you love from an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice. Share this knowledge with your family and friends. Discuss it in your community. Make sure that everyone around you knows that the law is on their side.
Remember, the judiciary has a duty to deliver justice, but it must do so within the bounds of fairness and impartiality. Section 407 is not an obstacle to good justice. It is a tool for better justice, because transparency and accountability make the courts more effective and more trusted by the people they serve.
🛡️ The next time you hear about someone facing an unfair trial, ask yourself:
- Is there reasonable apprehension of bias?
- Are witnesses being threatened?
- Is local sentiment preventing a fair hearing?
If yes, Section 407 may be the answer, and justice demands that the violation be corrected. That is the power of knowing the law. That is the power of Section 407 BNSS.
COMMENTS