Civil disputes must be pursued before the competent Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged the proceedings of the second respondent, the Taluk Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Salem Taluk, in Na.Ka.No.1475/2026/A7 dated 24 July 2026, purportedly issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings on the ground that they were wholly without jurisdiction, and a consequential direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further except in accordance with law before the competent Civil Court.

During the hearing, the Government Counsel produced a further order before the High Court.

Whether the proceedings initiated by the Taluk Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar under Section 126 of the BNSS were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed by exercising writ jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioners’ dispute ought to be pursued before the competent Civil Court rather than through the impugned proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

Section 126 of the BNSS concerns proceedings for requiring security for keeping the peace in cases where an Executive Magistrate considers that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity.

The High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to examine jurisdictional challenges to executive or quasi-judicial proceedings.

However, disputes involving civil rights, title, possession, or other matters requiring adjudication by a civil forum are ordinarily left to the competent Civil Court.

The High Court did not undertake a detailed examination of the validity or jurisdictional scope of the proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

After the Government Counsel produced the subsequent order, the Court disposed of the writ petition “in the light of the above order” and left it open to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.

Since the contents of the produced order are absent from the supplied text, the precise factual or legal basis for the Court’s conclusion cannot be ascertained.

The Court consequently declined to grant the requested writ relief and treated the civil forum as the appropriate forum for the petitioners’ underlying dispute.

The petitioners were given liberty to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

No express finding on the merits of the challenge to the Section 126 BNSS proceedings is recorded in the supplied judgment extract.