Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 96
When search-warrant may be issued
(1) Where—
(a) any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons order under section 94 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 95 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition; or
(b) such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person; or
(c) the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita will be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal authority.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing feature of Indian criminal procedure (earlier found in Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) that empowers courts to compel the production of evidence through search when voluntary cooperation fails or isn't possible. It balances the state's need to gather evidence for justice with safeguards against arbitrary or overly broad searches, especially protecting the privacy of postal communications by restricting who can order such searches.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 93 CrPC), courts have held that search warrants should not be issued routinely and must be based on genuine necessity, not merely convenience — the officer or court must show real reason to believe voluntary production would fail. Courts have also emphasized that general search warrants under the equivalent of clause (c) should be used sparingly, since they are broader and more intrusive than warrants tied to a specific document. The restriction on postal searches has been read as a specific privacy safeguard, ensuring only senior magistrates authorize interference with mail.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any police officer or magistrate can order a search of someone's mail.
Fact: Only a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate can authorize a search warrant for items in the custody of postal authorities. - Myth: A search warrant under this section allows police to search anywhere they like.
Fact: The court can specifically limit the warrant to a particular place or part of a place, and the search must stay within those limits. - Myth: General search warrants under clause (c) can be issued whenever convenient for investigators.
Fact: Courts have read this power narrowly, requiring a genuine belief that a general search will serve the purposes of the inquiry or trial, not just administrative convenience.