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

The Petitioners challenged several show cause notices issued by Executive Magistrates (Deputy Collectors/SDMs) across different jurisdictions in Goa

The notices were issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, calling upon the Petitioners to execute bonds for keeping the peace

The Petitioners contended that the Magistrates initiated these proceedings mechanically using cyclostyled templates without first passing a written order under Section 130 of the BNSS, which requires setting forth the substance of the information received

The State argued that the notices themselves should be construed as orders under Section 130 and that the urgency of maintaining public order justified the procedure

1. Whether the passing of a preliminary written order under Section 130 of the BNSS is a jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

2. Whether a show cause notice issued under Section 126 can be legally substituted for the reasoned order mandated by Section 130 of the BNSS.

3. Whether the issuance of "cyclostyled" or mechanical orders by an Executive Magistrate without recording a specific opinion on the sufficiency of grounds violates the statutory scheme of Chapter IX of the BNSS.

The court primarily interpreted Section 126 of the BNSS, which empowers an Executive Magistrate to require security for keeping the peace when there is a likelihood of breach of peace or public tranquility

Section 130 of the BNSS, which mandates that when acting under Section 126, the Magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of information received, the bond amount, and the term

The court relied on the established principle that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and no other

Precedents including Jitendra R. Deshprabhu v. Executive Magistrate (1992), Rajesh s/o Suryabhan Nayak v. State of Maharashtra (2006), and Tukaram Bharat Parab v. State (2021) were applied to underscore that the "substance of information" must be recorded to ensure the Magistrate's mind is applied to the facts.

The Court observed that Section 130 of the BNSS is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under Section 126

It reasoned that the requirement is not a mere formality because Section 131 requires the order to be read over to the person present in court, and Section 133 requires the order to accompany any summons or warrants issued

Upon examining the impugned notices, the Court found them to be "practically cyclostyled," where only names and signatures changed while the contents remained identical across different cases

Such template-based orders fail to reflect the Magistrate’s independent opinion on the "sufficiency of grounds" required by Section 126

The Court rejected the State's plea to treat the notices as Section 130 orders, holding that since the proceedings affect personal liberty, strict compliance with the statutory procedure is mandatory

A Section 130 order must be a distinct, written order setting forth the substance of the information received and cannot be replaced by a mechanical show cause notice

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices and the resulting proceedings in all six writ petitions

Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs