Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 179
Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides: Provided further that if such person is willing to attend at the police station, such person may be permitted so to do.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.
Why this exists
This provision continues, with modifications, Section 160 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It balances two needs: police must be able to gather information quickly from people who witnessed or know about a crime, but ordinary citizens should not be dragged to police stations at will, which was historically used to harass or intimidate witnesses. Over time, Parliament added protections — first for elderly men, then for women (recognising the risk of harassment and impropriety in calling women to stations, especially at night), and now, under the BNSS, explicitly extending this to disabled persons and those with acute illness, and raising the upper age limit for men from 65 to 60. The compensation clause in sub-section (2) reflects the principle that ordinary people summoned by the state to assist justice should not be financially burdened by it.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 160 CrPC), courts and High Courts repeatedly held that police notices asking women to appear at a police station violated the mandatory proviso protecting them, and quashed such notices, directing that women be questioned at their residence, often in the presence of a family member or female officer. This judicial trend reinforced that the proviso is not discretionary but a binding safeguard against custodial-style summoning of vulnerable witnesses. The BNSS provision is expected to be read in continuity with this established line of interpretation, though specific rulings under the new Sanhita are still developing.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can force anyone to come to the police station just by writing an order.
Fact: The law specifically protects certain groups — young boys, older men, women, disabled people, and the seriously ill — who cannot be compelled to appear anywhere except their own residence. - Myth: Witnesses always have to bear their own travel costs when police call them elsewhere.
Fact: Sub-section (2) allows the state government to make rules for the police to pay reasonable expenses to witnesses summoned to a place other than their residence. - Myth: A woman can never be asked to come to a police station under this law.
Fact: She cannot be compelled to, but she may voluntarily choose to attend the police station if she wishes, as the second proviso allows.