Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 153
Service or notification of order
(1) The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in the manner herein provided for service of summons.
(2) If such order cannot be so served, it shall be notified by proclamation published in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such person.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing procedural safeguard (earlier found in Section 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) meant to ensure that people are properly informed before an order affecting them—such as those under preventive or public-order provisions—takes effect. The law recognizes that direct service is the fairest method, but allows public notification as a practical fallback when a person cannot be found, so that justice isn't stalled by evasion or absence.
How courts read it
Courts have historically emphasized that proper service of such orders is not a mere formality but a matter of natural justice—an affected person must have real notice before being expected to comply. Under the old CrPC Section 134, courts held that failure to attempt personal service before resorting to proclamation could make the process legally vulnerable, since due process demands that reasonable efforts at direct communication be exhausted first.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: An order is invalid if the person never personally received it.
Fact: The law allows public proclamation and posting as a valid alternative when personal delivery isn't practical, and such notice can still make the order legally effective. - Myth: The government can choose any method of public notice.
Fact: The manner of proclamation must follow rules made by the State Government, ensuring some consistency and accountability in how such notices are given.