Section 9 of BNSS - Courts of Judicial Magistrates

Section 9 of BNSS 2023: Courts of Judicial Magistrates — Complete Guide with Exact Provisions & Recent Case Laws India's criminal justice system under

Section 9 of BNSS 2023: Courts of Judicial Magistrates — Complete Guide with Exact Provisions & Recent Case Laws

India's criminal justice system underwent a massive transformation on July 1, 2024, when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) officially replaced the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Among the 531 sections of this landmark legislation, Section 9 stands out as one of the most foundational provisions — it establishes the Courts of Judicial Magistrates, which serve as the very backbone of India's criminal justice delivery at the grassroots level.

If you are a law student, a practicing advocate, a judicial aspirant, or simply someone who wants to understand how criminal cases actually begin their journey in Indian courts, this article is your one-stop destination. We will break down Section 9 of the BNSS word by word, explore its three sub-sections in detail, compare it with the old CrPC Section 11, discuss the game-changing abolition of Metropolitan Magistrates, examine the hierarchy of criminal courts under BNSS, analyze the sentencing powers of Judicial Magistrates, and review recent case laws that are already shaping how courts interpret this provision.

So grab your coffee, settle in, and let's dive deep into the heart of India's new criminal procedure code.

---

What is Section 9 of the BNSS, 2023?

At its core, Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the establishment, appointment, and empowerment of Courts of Judicial Magistrates across every district in India. These courts are where the vast majority of criminal cases in India begin their life — from the moment an FIR is registered to the first bail hearing, from taking cognizance of offences to framing charges, from recording confessions to conducting trials.

Think of Judicial Magistrates as the first line of judicial defense in our criminal justice system. They are the ones who ensure that police investigations stay within legal boundaries, that accused persons are not arbitrarily detained, and that the rule of law is upheld from the very first stage of a criminal proceeding.

The exact text of Section 9 reads as follows:

"9. Courts of Judicial Magistrates.

(1) In every district there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify:

Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established.

(2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.

(3) The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court."

Let's unpack each of these sub-sections one by one, because every word here carries significant legal weight.

---

Sub-Section 1: Establishment of Courts of Judicial Magistrates

Sub-section (1) of Section 9 is the engine room of this provision. It mandates that in every district, the State Government must establish Courts of Judicial Magistrates of two classes:

• Judicial Magistrates of the First Class (JMFC)
• Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class (JMSC)

Now, here's the critical part — the State Government cannot just wake up one day and decide where to place these courts. The law requires consultation with the High Court before any notification is issued. This consultation requirement is not a mere formality; it is a constitutional safeguard designed to ensure judicial independence and prevent political interference in the placement of courts.

The phrase "as many... and at such places" gives flexibility to the State Government to establish multiple courts within a single district based on population density, crime rates, and geographical accessibility. For instance, a large district like Lucknow or Mumbai might have several JMFC courts, while a smaller district might function with just one or two.

The Proviso: Special Courts with Exclusive Jurisdiction

The proviso to sub-section (1) introduces a powerful mechanism — the creation of Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates. These are not your regular magistrate courts. They are established for specific purposes:

• To try any particular case (like a high-profile corruption case or a terrorist attack)
• To try any particular class of cases (like all CBI cases, all NIA cases, all economic offences, or all cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)

The key feature here is exclusive jurisdiction. Once a Special Court is established for a particular case or class of cases in a local area, no other Magistrate Court in that area can touch those cases. This prevents jurisdictional confusion, ensures specialized handling of complex matters, and streamlines the judicial process.

For example, if the State Government establishes a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to try all cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) in a particular district, then all NDPS cases in that district must go exclusively to that Special Court. Regular JMFCs cannot entertain them.

This exclusive jurisdiction provision is particularly important in today's India, where specialized crimes like cyber fraud, money laundering, human trafficking, and organized crime require judges with specific expertise and training. The proviso ensures that such cases are not scattered across multiple courts but are concentrated in the hands of judicial officers who can develop domain knowledge and consistency in their decisions.

---

Sub-Section 2: Appointment of Presiding Officers by the High Court

Sub-section (2) is beautifully simple but profoundly important:

"The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court."

This single line creates a watertight separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. While the State Government decides where the courts will be located (sub-section 1), the High Court decides who will preside over them. This ensures that:

• Judicial appointments remain free from political influence
• Only qualified and competent judicial officers handle criminal cases
• The independence of the judiciary is protected at the magisterial level

Under the old CrPC, this principle was equally important, and the BNSS has wisely retained it. The High Court, being the guardian of the subordinate judiciary, is best placed to assess the suitability, integrity, and competence of judicial officers.

The appointment process typically involves the High Court making selections from the State Judicial Service, which is recruited through competitive examinations conducted by the respective State Public Service Commissions or the High Courts themselves. Once appointed, these Judicial Magistrates serve under the administrative control and disciplinary supervision of the High Court, further insulating them from executive pressure.

---

Sub-Section 3: Conferring Powers on Civil Judges

Sub-section (3) introduces a practical and much-needed flexibility:

"The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court."

This provision is a judicial force multiplier. Here's how it works in practice:

Imagine a district where criminal cases have suddenly spiked due to a communal riot or a major criminal incident. The existing Judicial Magistrates are overwhelmed with work, and cases are piling up. At the same time, the district has several Civil Judges who are relatively free because civil litigation is seasonal or slow.

Under sub-section (3), the High Court can simply confer criminal powers (either JMFC or JMSC) upon these Civil Judges. They can then start handling criminal matters immediately, without needing a formal transfer or new appointment. This is an administratively efficient way to clear backlogs and ensure timely justice.

This power is not automatic — the High Court must be satisfied that it is "expedient or necessary" — but it provides a valuable tool for judicial administration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, many courts faced staff shortages, and this provision could have been used to temporarily empower available Civil Judges to handle urgent criminal matters like bail applications.

---

The Biggest Change: Abolition of Metropolitan Magistrates

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room — the most significant policy shift introduced by Section 9 of the BNSS.

Under the old CrPC, 1973, Section 11, the law created a dual system:

• For non-metropolitan areas: Courts of Judicial Magistrates (First Class and Second Class)
• For metropolitan areas (cities with population over 10 lakhs): Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates

This meant that if you committed a crime in a village, your case would go to a Judicial Magistrate. But if you committed the same crime in Delhi, Mumbai, or Kolkata, your case would go to a Metropolitan Magistrate. The procedures, nomenclature, and sometimes even the powers were different.

Section 9 of the BNSS has abolished this distinction entirely.

The words "(not being a metropolitan area)" that appeared in CrPC Section 11 are gone. The words "Metropolitan Magistrate" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" have been completely erased from India's criminal procedure vocabulary. Now, every district — whether urban or rural, big or small — has the same uniform structure: Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and Second Class.

Why This Matters

This abolition is not just about simplifying nomenclature. It carries deep constitutional and practical significance:

• Equality Before Law: Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Having one judicial structure for cities and another for villages created a perceived hierarchy. The BNSS removes this artificial distinction.
• Administrative Simplicity: Lawyers, judges, and litigants no longer need to navigate two different sets of rules depending on where a crime occurred. A single, uniform framework applies nationwide.
• Streamlined Appeals: Under the old system, appeals from Metropolitan Magistrates went to the Sessions Court, but the intermediate appellate structure was different. Now, all JMFCs report uniformly to the Court of Session.
• Judicial Mobility: Judicial officers can be transferred more easily between urban and rural postings without needing reorientation to different procedural frameworks.
• Reduced Confusion: For law students and young lawyers, learning criminal procedure just became simpler. No more memorizing separate rules for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

---

Hierarchy of Criminal Courts Under BNSS

To fully appreciate Section 9, we need to understand where Judicial Magistrates fit in the larger hierarchy of criminal courts. The BNSS has rationalized this hierarchy significantly:

Classes of Criminal Courts (Section 6 BNSS):

1. High Courts — The apex criminal court in each state, with original criminal jurisdiction in certain matters and appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts.
2. Courts of Session — Established by the State Government in every sessions division (Section 8). These courts try serious offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than seven years.
3. Courts of Judicial Magistrates — Established under Section 9. These are the workhorses of the criminal justice system, handling the bulk of criminal cases.
4. Executive Magistrates — Established under Section 14. These are administrative officers (like District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates) who exercise limited judicial functions related to public order and preventive justice.

Key Positions Within the Magisterial Hierarchy:

• Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) — Appointed by the High Court under Section 10(1) from among JMFCs. The CJM supervises and controls all other Judicial Magistrates in the district.
• Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) — Appointed by the High Court under Section 10(2). Assists the CJM and can exercise all or any of the CJM's powers as directed by the High Court.
• Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) — Designated by the High Court under Section 10(3) from among JMFCs in sub-divisions. Exercises supervisory control over other Judicial Magistrates in the sub-division.
• Special Judicial Magistrates — Appointed under Section 11, typically for specific cases or classes of cases, for a term not exceeding one year at a time.

What Was Removed:

The BNSS has boldly removed several positions that existed under the CrPC:

• Metropolitan Magistrates — Completely abolished
• Chief Metropolitan Magistrates — Completely abolished
• Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates — Completely abolished
• Assistant Sessions Judges — Removed from the hierarchy
• Judicial Magistrates of the Third Class — Abolished (only First and Second Class remain)

This pruning of the court structure reflects the BNSS's overarching goal of simplification and rationalization.

---

Sentencing Powers of Judicial Magistrates (Section 23 BNSS)

Understanding Section 9 is incomplete without knowing what Judicial Magistrates can actually do once they are established. Section 23 of the BNSS specifies their sentencing powers:

• JMFC: Can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or fine not exceeding ₹50,000, or both, or community service.
• JMSC: Can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year, or fine not exceeding ₹10,000, or both, or community service.

The introduction of community service as a sentencing option is a notable reformative addition under the BNSS. It allows Magistrates to order convicts to perform work that benefits the community without remuneration, serving as an alternative or supplement to traditional imprisonment and fines.

---

Powers and Functions of Judicial Magistrates Under BNSS

Now that we understand the structure, let's explore what these Judicial Magistrates actually do. Their powers are vast and touch almost every aspect of criminal procedure:

• Taking Cognizance of Offences: Under Section 210 of the BNSS, Judicial Magistrates can take cognizance of offences upon receiving a complaint or a police report. This is often the very first judicial act in a criminal case.
• Issuing Summons and Warrants: Magistrates have the power to compel the appearance of accused persons and witnesses through summons (Section 65) and warrants (Section 70).
• Granting Bail: This is perhaps the most high-profile function. Sections 480 to 490 of the BNSS deal with bail, and Judicial Magistrates are the first authority to decide whether an accused person should be released pending trial.
• Authorizing Detention: Under Section 187, when police produce an arrested person, the Magistrate decides whether to authorize detention in police custody or judicial custody, and for how long. The BNSS has introduced significant changes here, allowing police custody of up to 15 days to be taken in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of detention.
• Recording Confessions and Statements: Section 183 empowers Magistrates to record confessions and statements of witnesses, which can become crucial evidence during trial. The BNSS now mandates that in cases of serious offences (like rape, acid attack, murder), the Magistrate must record the statement of the victim as soon as the offence is brought to police notice.
• Directing Investigations: Magistrates can order police to investigate specific aspects of a case or can conduct judicial inquiries themselves.
• Conducting Trials: Judicial Magistrates conduct trials for a vast range of offences — from minor thefts and assaults to more serious crimes depending on their sentencing powers.
• Passing Sentences: As discussed above, under Section 23 of the BNSS.
• Issuing Search Warrants: Under Sections 99-104, Magistrates can authorize searches of premises and seizure of property.
• Maintenance Proceedings: Under Sections 144-147, Magistrates can pass orders for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Security Proceedings: Under Chapter IX (Sections 125-143), Magistrates can require persons to execute bonds for keeping the peace or for good behaviour.

---

Comparative Analysis: BNSS Section 9 vs. CrPC Section 11

Let's put the old and new provisions side by side to appreciate the changes:

Table

Feature	CrPC, 1973 (Section 11)	BNSS, 2023 (Section 9)
Area Designation	Metropolitan vs. Non-Metropolitan	Uniform Districts Only
Court Types	Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Judicial Magistrate Second Class (JMSC), Judicial Magistrate Third Class (JMSC-III)	JMFC and JMSC only
Special Courts	Provision existed for Special Courts	Retained and strengthened
Appointment of Presiding Officers	By High Court	By High Court (retained)
Civil Judges	Could be conferred powers	Can be conferred powers (retained)
Metropolitan Areas	Defined under Section 8 CrPC	Completely abolished
Assistant Sessions Judges	Existed under Section 9(3) CrPC	Abolished
Third Class Magistrates	Existed in some states	Abolished

As you can see, the BNSS has rationalized and simplified the court structure while retaining the core principles of judicial independence and executive-judicial collaboration.

---

Recent Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations

Since the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, courts across India have started grappling with its provisions. While Section 9 itself is a structural provision and has not been the subject of extensive litigation (because it deals with court establishment rather than substantive rights), several important judicial developments have emerged that indirectly impact or relate to the functioning of Judicial Magistrates under the BNSS framework.

1. Applicability of BNSS vs. CrPC: The Allahabad High Court Ruling (2024)

One of the most significant early judgments came from the Allahabad High Court on August 6, 2024, in Deepu Versus State of UP (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12287/2024). This was a Division Bench judgment that clarified a burning question: When does the BNSS apply, and when does the CrPC continue to apply?

The Court held:

• If an offence was committed and the FIR was registered before July 1, 2024, then the CrPC governs the investigation and procedure.
• If the offence was committed before July 1, 2024, but the FIR was registered after July 1, 2024, then the substantive law (IPC/BNS) is governed by Article 20 of the Constitution (which prohibits ex post facto laws), but the procedure is governed by the BNSS.
• If both the offence and FIR occurred after July 1, 2024, then the BNSS applies fully.

This ruling is critical for Judicial Magistrates because it determines which procedural code they must follow when taking cognizance, issuing process, granting bail, or conducting trials. The judgment also clarified that if a criminal proceeding or charge sheet is challenged before the High Court on or after July 1, 2024 (even if the investigation was under CrPC), the petition must be filed under Section 528 of the BNSS (saving of inherent powers), not under Section 482 of the CrPC.

2. Tanya Anuj Saraogi v. State (Delhi District Court, May 2, 2025)

In this recent case, the Delhi District Court dealt with a fascinating scenario where an FIR was registered on March 19, 2020 (under CrPC), but the charge sheet was filed on December 2, 2024 (after BNSS came into force). The accused challenged the Magistrate's order taking cognizance, arguing that the limitation period under the CrPC had expired.

The Court had to determine whether Sections 467-473 of the CrPC (limitation for taking cognizance) or Sections 513-519 of the BNSS (the new limitation provisions) would apply. This case illustrates how Judicial Magistrates are now navigating the complex transition between the two legal regimes and how Section 9 courts are applying the new procedural framework to cases that straddle both eras.

The Court observed that between the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet, a regime change occurred in India's criminal procedure. This observation is significant because it acknowledges that Judicial Magistrates operating under Section 9 of the BNSS must now develop new interpretive frameworks for transitional cases.

3. Himanshu Sharma v. State of MP (Supreme Court, 2024)

In (2024) 4 SCC 222, the Supreme Court delivered an important ruling on cancellation of bail under the BNSS. While this case primarily dealt with Sections 483, 480, and 403 of the BNSS, it has significant implications for Judicial Magistrates who grant bail under Section 9 courts.

The Supreme Court reiterated that:

• The considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail are entirely different.
• Bail can only be cancelled if the court is satisfied that after release:
  • The accused misused the liberty granted to him
  • The accused flouted the conditions of the bail order
  • The bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the court's powers
  • The bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud

This ruling guides Judicial Magistrates in exercising their bail jurisdiction under the BNSS and ensures that the procedural safeguards evolved under the CrPC continue to protect accused persons.

4. Ram Singh v. State of UP (Supreme Court, 2024)

In (2024) 4 SCC 208, the Supreme Court compared the old IPC sections with the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 sections while setting aside a conviction. The Court compared Sections 302, 301, and 307 of the IPC with Sections 102, 103(1), and 109 of the BNS and extended the benefit of doubt to the convicts.

While this case dealt with substantive criminal law rather than Section 9 of the BNSS, it demonstrates how the new criminal laws are being interpreted by the higher judiciary — interpretations that will eventually guide Judicial Magistrates in their day-to-day functioning.

5. Premnath v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC 1599) — Continuing Relevance

This classic Supreme Court judgment, though decided under the CrPC, continues to hold immense relevance under the BNSS. The Court held that a Civil Judge cannot exercise the powers of an Additional Sessions Judge unless they are formally appointed to that post under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under the BNSS, this principle translates directly: no judicial officer can exercise magisterial powers unless duly appointed or empowered under Section 9 or Section 11 of the BNSS. This ensures that judicial authority is not assumed but is properly vested through constitutional processes.

6. Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 18 SCC 718

The Supreme Court held that default sentences for non-payment of fines must be in addition to, not concurrent with, the substantive sentence or other default sentences. This principle guides Judicial Magistrates when passing sentences under Section 23 of the BNSS, which specifies the sentencing powers of Magistrates.

7. State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 222

This landmark judgment defined the critical difference between arrest and custody — a distinction that every Judicial Magistrate must understand when dealing with remand applications under Section 187 of the BNSS. The Court held that while every arrest involves custody, not every custody amounts to arrest. This nuanced understanding is essential when Magistrates authorize detention under the new code.

8. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260

The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for arrest, holding that the mere registration of an FIR does not automatically warrant an arrest. Police officers must satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest following the parameters laid out in the law. Judicial Magistrates under Section 9 must keep this principle in mind when scrutinizing police remand applications and bail pleas.

9. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court directed police officers to not automatically arrest individuals in cases under Section 498A IPC or other offenses punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment. The Court emphasized that police must follow the parameters laid out in Section 41 of the CrPC (now Section 41 of the BNSS) before making arrests. This judgment continues to guide Judicial Magistrates when they review arrest records and decide on bail applications.

10. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96

The Supreme Court directed that a Magistrate must inform an arrested person about their right to medical examination, as provided under the law. This direction aims to protect prisoners from torture and ill-treatment by police in custody. Under the BNSS, this principle continues to apply, and Judicial Magistrates must ensure that arrested persons are aware of their rights.

---

Practical Implications for Litigants and Lawyers

Understanding Section 9 of the BNSS is not just an academic exercise — it has real-world consequences for everyone involved in the criminal justice system:

For Accused Persons:

• Knowing that Judicial Magistrates are the first point of contact helps in preparing bail applications and understanding remand procedures.
• The uniform structure means that procedures are consistent whether you are in a metro city or a rural district.
• The abolition of Metropolitan Magistrates means that all JMFCs have the same powers nationwide, reducing confusion about jurisdictional limits.

For Complainants and Victims:

• Special Courts under the proviso to Section 9(1) ensure that sensitive cases (like POCSO, NDPS, or economic offences) are handled by courts with specialized expertise.
• The requirement of High Court consultation for establishing courts ensures that judicial infrastructure is planned based on legal needs rather than political considerations.

For Lawyers:

• Understanding the sentencing powers under Section 23 is crucial when deciding whether to opt for a magistrate trial or push for sessions trial.
• The ability of High Courts to confer criminal powers on Civil Judges (sub-section 3) means that lawyers should be aware that the presiding officer in a criminal case might be a judge primarily handling civil matters.
• The exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts means lawyers must verify whether their case falls under a Special Court before filing.

For Judicial Officers:

• Section 9 provides the legal foundation for their authority. Every Judicial Magistrate must be able to trace their powers back to this provision.
• The exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts means that Magistrates must carefully check whether a case has been assigned to a Special Court before taking cognizance.

---

The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

While Section 9 of the BNSS represents a significant step toward a more rationalized and uniform criminal justice system, several challenges remain:

Challenges:

• Infrastructure Gaps: Abolishing the metropolitan distinction is theoretically sound, but many rural districts still lack adequate court infrastructure, staff, and digital connectivity.
• Judicial Vacancies: The High Courts' power to appoint presiding officers under sub-section (2) is only as effective as the availability of qualified judicial officers. Many states face acute shortages.
• Transition Confusion: As the Tanya Anuj Saraogi case demonstrates, cases that straddle the CrPC-BNSS transition period create complex jurisdictional and procedural questions for Magistrates.
• Special Court Overlap: The exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts under the proviso to sub-section (1) needs clear notification and communication to avoid situations where regular Magistrates inadvertently entertain cases assigned to Special Courts.
• Training Needs: Judicial officers who previously handled only civil matters and are now empowered under sub-section (3) need adequate training in criminal procedure.

Opportunities:

• Uniformity: The single-tier structure makes legal education, judicial training, and cross-jurisdictional practice much simpler.
• Flexibility: Sub-section (3) provides a dynamic tool for judicial administration, allowing rapid deployment of judicial resources where needed.
• Specialization: The Special Court mechanism can be used to create dedicated courts for emerging crimes like cyber offences, cryptocurrency fraud, and environmental violations.
• Technology Integration: With the BNSS emphasizing electronic modes (Section 530), Judicial Magistrates can leverage technology to conduct remote hearings, issue e-summons, and manage cases more efficiently.
• Access to Justice: By treating all districts uniformly, the BNSS theoretically brings the same quality of judicial infrastructure to rural areas as to urban centers.

---

Conclusion

Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is far more than a dry administrative provision about court establishment. It is the constitutional cornerstone upon which India's entire magisterial criminal justice system rests. By abolishing the artificial metropolitan-non-metropolitan divide, by ensuring High Court oversight in appointments, by empowering Civil Judges to handle criminal cases when needed, and by creating a framework for Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction, Section 9 reflects the BNSS's overarching philosophy: simplicity, uniformity, and accessibility.

For the common citizen, this means that whether you are in a bustling metropolis or a quiet village, the first judicial authority you encounter in a criminal matter will be a Judicial Magistrate operating under the same legal framework, with the same powers, and bound by the same constitutional principles.

As India's courts continue to interpret and apply the BNSS in the coming years, Section 9 will remain the silent but steady foundation — the provision that ensures there is always a judge, in every district, ready to hear the people's grievances and uphold the rule of law.

The journey from CrPC to BNSS is not merely a change of names or numbers. It is a fundamental reimagining of how criminal justice is delivered in the world's largest democracy. And at the heart of this reimagining sits Section 9 — simple in its wording, profound in its impact, and essential to the promise of justice for all.

---

Source Links

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Official Bare Act) — India Code / NCRB Sankalan Portal
2. Section 9 BNSS — Courts of Judicial Magistrates (Indian Kanoon) — indiankanoon.org/doc/88843500/
3. BNSS Section 9 vs CrPC Section 11 — Comparative Analysis (LexiBal) — lexibal.com/bnss-section-9-judicial-magistrates-special-courts/
4. Constitution of Criminal Courts Under BNSS (Drishti Judiciary) — drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/constitution-of-criminal-courts-under-bnss
5. Section 9 — Courts of Judicial Magistrates (GoLegal Consultancy) — golegalconsultancy.com/bnss-act/courts-of-judicial-magistrates/
6. BNSS / CrPC Landmark Judgments (Vidhi Judicial) — vidhijudicial.com/landmark-judgements-on-code-of-criminal-procedure.html
7. Deepu v. State of UP — Allahabad High Court, August 6, 2024 — lawhelpline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/New-Criminal-Laws-_-15.05.2024.pdf
8. Tanya Anuj Saraogi v. State — Delhi District Court, May 2, 2025 — indiankanoon.org/doc/165488663/
9. Himanshu Sharma v. State of MP — Supreme Court, (2024) 4 SCC 222
10. Ram Singh v. State of UP — Supreme Court, (2024) 4 SCC 208
11. BNSS Bare Act — MHA Official PDF — mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf
12. CrPC and BNSS: Comparative Analysis (PIB) — static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2024/may/doc2024522337501.pdf
13. Comparison Summary BNSS to CrPC (BPRD) — bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/Comparison%20summary%20BNSS%20to%20CrPC.pdf
14. Key Provisions of BNSS (Chhattisgarh Judicial Academy) — csja.gov.in/pdf/study_material/Key%20provisions%20of%20Bharatiya%20Nagarik%20Suraksha%20Sanhita.pdf
15. BNSS One Liner Notes (Vidhi Judicial) — vidhijudicial.com/bnssone-liner-notes.html
16. Delhi High Court — Section 193(9) BNSS Validity Ruling — livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-section-1939-bnss-right-to-default-bail-302154
17. Rajasthan Government Notification on BNSS Section 9, 10, 11 (July 1, 2024) — bprd.nic.in/uploads/table_b/Section%20of%20BNSS%206,8,9,10,11.pdf
18. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — Paradigm Shift (LexisNexis) — lexisnexis.com/blogs/in-legal/b/law/posts/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-paradigm-shift-from-procedural-code-to-nagarik-suraksha
19. Power of Courts Under BNSS (Drishti Judiciary) — drishtijudiciary.com/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/power-of-courts-under-bnss

20. Relevant Rulings Under BNSS (Government Publication) — cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3d0921d442ee91b896ad95059d13df618/uploads/2024/10/202503132071465822.pdf

---

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific cases and to verify all statutory provisions against official government publications.