Impose prohibitory orders only in urgent cases, HC tells deputy commissioners in Punjab
The Punjab and Haryana High Court says the provision empowers district authorities to act only in ‘urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger’ and that the statute must be ‘followed to the hilt’.
4 min readChandigarhUpdated: Dec 2, 2025 05:24 PM IST
The petitioner submitted that applications under the Right to Information Act had been filed with all districts of Punjab regarding prohibitory orders, but only eight had responded. (File image)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging indiscriminate and prolonged use of prohibitory orders under erstwhile section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—now section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—while issuing clear directions to all deputy commissioners in Punjab to strictly adhere to statutory safeguards and record reasons whenever the power is invoked.
Emphasising the limits built into the statute, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu said that section 163 empowers district authorities to act only in “urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger” and that the statute must be “followed to the hilt”. The power, he cautioned, “must not be applied in a mechanical manner, without application of mind”.
He added that the district magistrate, deputy commissioner, additional deputy commissioner, or subdivisional magistrate, “as the case may be”, must not only apply their mind but also “pass a speaking order as and when the said emergent power is exercised under Section 163”.
Chief Justice Nagu said, “We advise the district magistrates of all districts of the state of Punjab to ensure compliance of Section 163 BNSS and other related provisions.”
The directions came after an extended hearing during which the petitioner argued that several districts had imposed prohibitory orders under CrPC section 144 “continuously for 300 days” without pause, creating what he described as an “anti-democratic narrative” where citizens could be booked on “flimsy grounds” even for peaceful assembly. The petitioner said the administration was using the excuse of farmer protests in many cases. “It is highly presumptuous that they are putting the entire onus on farmer protests,” he said.
The petitioner submitted that applications under the Right to Information Act had been filed with all districts of Punjab regarding prohibitory orders, but only eight had responded. “The data shows that judicial intervention is required… any four or five people travelling across districts can be arrested on flimsy grounds and embroiled in a criminal case,” he said. Arguing that the state “cannot claim to be disturbed 365 days a year,” he said such blanket prohibitory orders hurt the state’s investment climate and deepen its economic distress.
Two-month limit under BNSS section 163
The petitioner added that many of the orders, reproduced in his petition through a tabulated chart, were issued “without any reasoning” and applied to entire districts. “There has to be some reasoning for imposing it across a whole district. Anyone can be picked up from any part of the district,” he said, contending that BNSS section 163, like the earlier section 144, limits the enforcement period to two months unless the state government, through a reasoned notification, extends it for up to six months.
The petitioner argued that citizens must be informed when prohibitory orders are invoked. “If I am not even told, how can I be embroiled in a criminal case for congregating in a group of five?” His limited prayer, he repeatedly submitted, was only that deputy commissioners pass reasoned orders after judicious application of mind and follow due procedure.
Opposing the petition, the Senior Deputy Advocate-General Salil Sabhlok argued that the petitioner’s case rested entirely on “assumptions and presumptions”. He said the petitioner himself had reproduced orders that were date-bound and no longer in force. “None of these orders exist as on date. How is he aggrieved?” he said, adding that the petitioner was attempting to curtail the executive’s ability to maintain law and order.
Story continues below this ad
The state argued that several prohibitory orders cited pertained to the farmers’ protest period—February 2024 to March 2025—and were no longer effective. “The independence of the DC to maintain law and order cannot be taken away,” the law officer said.
The petitioner said that if the state claimed the orders were linked to the farmers’ protest, it should place even one such order on record. “I would withdraw the petition immediately if the state can produce a single order saying it was because of the farmers’ protest,” he said.
After hearing both sides, the bench held that issuing a notice was unnecessary and that the matter could be disposed of with directions, noting that “none of the orders illustrated in para 8 exist today”.
Manraj Grewal Sharma is a senior journalist and the Resident Editor of The Indian Express in Chandigarh, where she leads the newspaper’s coverage of north India’s most politically and institutionally significant regions. From Punjab and Haryana to Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, she oversees reporting at the intersection of governance, law, politics and society. She also reports on the diaspora, especially in Canada and the US.
With a career spanning journalism across several countries, academia and international development, Manraj brings a rare depth of perspective to regional reporting. She is widely regarded as a leading chronicler of Punjab’s contemporary history and socio-political evolution, particularly its long shadow of militancy, federal tensions and identity politics. Her book, Dreams after Darkness, remains a definitive account of the militancy years and their enduring aftermath.
Professional Background & Expertise
A gold medalist in mass communication and a post-graduate in English literature, Manraj has a multifaceted career spanning journalism, academia, and international development. She was also awarded a fellowship by National Foundation of India and did several in-depth pieces on Manipur. Internationally, she has reported from Israel, US, UK, Myanmar, and Mauritius
Her key focus areas include:
Regional Politics, History, Agriculture, Diaspora, and Security. Of late, she has started focusing on Legal & Judicial Affairs: Much of her recent work involves reporting on high-stakes cases in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ranging from environmental policy to civil rights.
International Consulting: She previously served as a consulting editor for the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network and a publishing consultant for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Manila.
Academia: For five years, she was the managing editor of Gender, Technology and Development, a peer-reviewed international journal at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reportage focuses heavily on judicial interventions and regional governance:
1. Environment & Governance
"‘NGT can’t test legality of policy’: HC hears challenge to Punjab’s ‘Green Habitat’ plan" (Dec 22, 2025): Covering a critical legal battle over whether the National Green Tribunal has the authority to strike down a state policy regularizing farmhouses on delisted forest land.
"High court pulls up Punjab poll panel over audio clip probe" (Dec 10, 2025): Reporting on judicial concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of local body elections.
2. Legal Rights & Social Welfare
"HC issues notice to Punjab, Haryana over delay in building old age homes" (Dec 22, 2025): Reporting on a contempt petition against top officials for failing to establish government-run homes for the elderly as promised in 2019.
"Victims can appeal acquittals in sessions court without seeking special leave" (Dec 19, 2025): Highlighting a significant procedural shift in criminal law following a Supreme Court ruling.
"HC upholds benefits for Punjab FCI officer acquitted in 20-year-old bribery case" (Dec 19, 2025): A report on the concept of "honourable acquittal" and its impact on employee benefits.
3. Human Rights & Identity
"As Punjab denies parole to MP Amritpal Singh, HC asks it to submit ‘foundational material’" (Dec 1, 2025): Covering the legal proceedings regarding the radical preacher and sitting MP's request to attend Parliament.
"Protecting life paramount: HC backs Muslim woman in live-in after verbal divorce" (Nov 6, 2025): Analyzing judicial protections for personal liberty in the context of traditional practices.
Signature Beats
Manraj is recognized for her ability to decode complex judicial rulings and relate them to the everyday lives of citizens. Whether it is a 30-year-old land battle in Fazilka or the political implications of Kangana Ranaut’s candidacy in Mandi, her writing provides deep historical and regional context.
Contact
@grewal_sharma on X
manrajgrewalsharma on Instagram ... Read More
