Written order under Section 130 BNSS is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for security proceedings under Section 126.

The petitioners filed several Criminal Writ Petitions challenging show-cause notices issued by various Executive Magistrates/SDMs in Goa under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The notices required the petitioners to execute bonds or bail bonds for keeping the peace.

The primary grievance was that the Magistrates issued these notices mechanically, using identical "cyclostyled" formats without passing a mandatory written order under Section 130 of the BNSS.

The petitioners contended that the Magistrates failed to record the substance of the information received or form an objective opinion regarding the sufficiency of grounds for the proceedings.

1. Whether the passing of a written order under Section 130 of the BNSS is a sine qua non for an Executive Magistrate to assume jurisdiction and initiate proceedings under Section 126.

2. Whether the issuance of "cyclostyled" or mechanical notices satisfies the statutory requirement of recording the "substance of information" and the Magistrate's "opinion" as mandated by the BNSS.

Section 126 of the BNSS, which empowers an Executive Magistrate to require a person to show cause for keeping the peace upon receiving information of a likely breach of peace.

Section 130 of the BNSS, which mandates that the Magistrate must make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the bond amount, and the term of force.

Jitendra R. Deshprabhu Vs. Executive Magistrate (1992), which held that the Magistrate must reach an opinion on the sufficiency of grounds.

Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006), which condemned the use of printed/cyclostyled forms as a lack of application of mind in preventive proceedings.

The Court reasoned that Section 130 is the procedural gateway for exercising powers under Section 126.

It emphasized that the requirement to "set forth the substance of information received" is not a mere formality but a safeguard for personal liberty.

The Court observed that the impugned notices in all six petitions were "practically cyclostyled," with identical contents regardless of the varying facts of each case, indicating a total failure of the Magistrates to apply a "judicial mind".

The Court rejected the State's argument that a show-cause notice under Section 126 could be construed as an order under Section 130, clarifying that the statute requires a distinct written order to be read or explained to the person concerned under Section 131 and 133.

The Court concluded that if a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

The Court quashed and set aside all impugned notices and the resulting proceedings in the six writ petitions. The Rule was made absolute, with a direction to the Executive Magistrates to strictly comply with the requirements of Chapter IX of the BNSS in future proceedings.