Written order under Section 130 BNSS is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under Section 126.

The petitioners challenged several show-cause notices issued by various Deputy Collectors and Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) across Goa under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

These notices directed the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds or bail bonds to maintain peace.

The petitioners contended that the Magistrates failed to pass a mandatory preliminary order in writing under Section 130 of the BNSS before issuing the notices.

They argued that the Magistrates acted mechanically, using "cyclostyled" forms that did not reflect the "substance of information" received or a genuine opinion regarding the sufficiency of grounds to proceed.

1. Whether an Executive Magistrate can initiate proceedings and issue a show-cause notice under Section 126 of the BNSS without first passing a reasoned order in writing as contemplated under Section 130 of the BNSS.

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

The court primarily interpreted Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Section 126 permits an Executive Magistrate to require a person to show cause for executing a bond if they are likely to breach public tranquility.

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

The court relied on the precedent in Jitendra R. Deshprabhu Vs. Executive Magistrate (1992), which established that receipt of information alone is insufficient; the Magistrate must reach an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.

It further applied principles from Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) and Tukaram Bharat Parab Vs. State (2021), which held that an order under the equivalent provision of the CrPC is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction and that such orders must reflect the application of a judicial mind rather than being mechanical or printed.

The court reasoned that the requirement of passing an order under Section 130 BNSS is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite.

The court noted that under Sections 131 and 133 of the BNSS, the written order must be read to the person present or accompany the summons; therefore, the absence of a distinct order setting forth the "substance of information" invalidates subsequent steps.

Upon reviewing the impugned notices, the court found them to be "practically cyclostyled," where only names and signatures varied while the content remained identical.

The court emphasized the legal maxim that if a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, it must be performed in that manner or not at all.

Because the Magistrates failed to record their independent satisfaction and the specific substance of the information in a separate Section 130 order, they lacked the competence to proceed under Section 126.

The court further held that mechanical, cyclostyled notices do not constitute valid orders under the law.

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices and the resulting proceedings in all six Writ Petitions.

The court directed Executive Magistrates to strictly adhere to the statutory procedures of Chapter IX of the BNSS to protect the personal liberty of citizens.