The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which was established during the colonial era, has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which represents a radical change in India’s criminal procedural framework. One of its most important clauses, Section 528 BNSS, is a pillar of judicial discretion that protects the High Courts’ innate authority to maintain justice, stop misuse of the legal system, and protect the integrity of court proceedings.

Similar to the former Section 482 CrPC, this clause gives High Courts the authority to get involved in criminal cases when the statutory remedies are insufficient. The scope, use, and restrictions of these BNSS inherent capabilities are thoroughly examined in this article, which is contextualized by legislative intent, court decisions, and developing jurisprudence.

Historical Context and Legislative Continuity

In Indian criminal law, the idea of “inherent powers” has its origins in laws from the colonial era. Section 482 of the CrPC expressly acknowledged the High Court’s jurisdiction to get involved in criminal cases in order to stop injustices from happening. This clause acknowledged the courts’ inherent jurisdiction, which is derived from the noblesse oblige principle—the obligation of higher courts to function as guardians of justice—rather than being a formal grant.

Section 528 BNSS retains this legacy verbatim:

“Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The legislature’s intention to maintain judicial discretion while updating procedural laws is demonstrated by this continuity. However, the change from the CrPC to the BNSS has prompted concerns over the High Courts’ temporal jurisdiction and the relevance of precedents, especially in cases that are still pending.

Scope and Purpose of Section 528 BNSS.

1. Securing the Ends of Justice

Section 528’s main goal is to give High Courts the authority to step in when rigorous adherence to formalities would cause injustice. In R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1960), for example, the Supreme Court listed three situations in which inherent powers could be used:

a. Legal Bar: When actions are forbidden by statute.

b. Absence of Prima Facie Case: When a complaint or FIR’s accusations fail to reveal an offense.

c. Deficiency of Legal Evidence: When there is not enough evidence to support charges.

These ideas are still applicable under BNSS. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Section 420 IPC FIR in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2024), stating that the disagreement was solely civil and devoid of criminal intent.

2. Preventing Abuse of Process

High Courts regularly use Section 528 to stop actions that were started with a hidden agenda. FIRs issued to harass spouses under false pretenses have been overturned by courts in divorce disputes, for instance. “Inherent powers must shield citizens from vexatious litigation masquerading as criminal complaints,” the Delhi High Court stressed in XYZ v. State (2024).

3. Rectifying Procedural Errors

In Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State (2024), the Delhi High Court corrected factual errors in an earlier ruling, establishing a new use of Section 528 and confirming that courts have the power to remedy unintentional errors in order to maintain judicial accuracy.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Precedents

Fundamental Ideas 

In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977), the Supreme Court established guidelines for the exercise of inherent powers, which include the following: 

• They cannot supersede certain statutory remedies. 

• They ought to safeguard justice or stop procedural misuse. 

• They cannot go against clear legislative directives.

This framework makes sure that legislative procedures are not in conflict with inherent powers, but rather that they are complemented by them. 

Criminal Proceedings and Quashing of FIRs

Quashing FIRs and criminal procedures is the most common use of Section 528. The Supreme Court outlined several grounds for quashing in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), including: 

• Allegations that fail to establish a prima facie offense. 

• Legal statutes that prohibit certain actions (such as immunity under Article 20(3) of the Constitution). 

• Situations where accusations are vexatious or implausible by nature.

For example, the Court upheld the authority of High Courts to halt proceedings even after a chargesheet is submitted in Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2020), as long as the material evidence, if uncontested, reveals no offense. In a same vein, the Delhi High Court recently upheld procedural accuracy by correcting factual errors in a court order under Section 528. Restrictions on innate abilities Innate powers are not unchecked, despite their scope. Courts have often ruled that they cannot: 

• Reopen bail orders determined on the basis of merits; 

• Interfere with ongoing police investigations into cognizable offenses; or 

• Replace statutory appeals or modifications.

The Rajasthan High Court stressed in Omprakash Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan (2024) that inherent powers under Section 528 cannot bring back expired legislative remedies, such as examining final judgments prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.

Limitations on Inherent Powers

While Section 528 is expansive, courts have delineated clear boundaries:

1. Non-Interference in Investigations

At the investigative stage, High Courts cannot dismiss FIRs unless the accusations are blatantly baseless. The Supreme Court warned against judicial overreach into police investigations in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), a principle supported by the BNSS.

2. Interlocutory Orders

Interim orders, like summons or bail, cannot be contested by inherent authorities. In Suresh v. State (2024), the Kerala High Court denied a petition to halt an arrest, emphasizing that this type of relief is not covered under Section 528.

3. Alternative Remedies

When there are other options, courts frequently reject petitions. In ABC v. State (2024), for example, the Punjab & Haryana High Court emphasized that complainants must first approach jurisdictional magistrates and rejected to oversee a SIT investigation

Procedural Nuances and Judicial Trends

1. Temporal Authority 

Whether pending cases under the CrPC come under Section 528 is a controversial question following the BNSS’s enactment. In Vijay Singh v. State (2024), the Rajasthan High Court decided that FIRs filed prior to July 1, 2024, are still subject to the CrPC, whereas BNSS governs subsequent proceedings. On the other hand, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the new Sanhita must be followed in appeals from pre-BNSS trials. 

2. Chargesheet quashing 

Section 528 still permits post-chargesheet quashing. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s jurisdiction to dismiss chargesheets without supporting evidence, even after cognizance, in Kiran Sharma v. CBI (2024).

3. Cancellation and Bail 

Although Section 528 does not directly regulate bail, it is used by courts to revoke it in special cases. In State v. Mohan Das (2024), the Allahabad High Court invoked its inherent powers to “secure the ends of justice” and denied bail for a murder suspect who intimidated witnesses.

Comparative Analysis: CrPC vs. BNSS

Transitional concerns regarding outstanding cases were brought up by the BNSS’s enactment on July 1, 2024. Section 531 BNSS makes it clear that actions taken under the CrPC prior to this date are still being carried out under the previous administration. The Rajasthan High Court ruled in Krishan Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2024) that as the BNSS is applicable prospectively, petitions filed after it regarding pre-enactment FIRs must follow the rules of the CrPC. This emphasizes how important it is to carefully follow transitional phrases in order to prevent jurisdictional problems.

In a 2024 decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized the need for “unfettered powers” to handle unique circumstances outside the scope of legislative consideration. The Court noted that inherent powers, which allow courts to adjust to “infinite circumstances” while averting injustice, constitute the “life-blood” of judicial efficacy. This viewpoint supports the Delhi High Court’s application of Section 528 to rectify unintentional factual errors and guarantee that court orders accurately reflect procedural history.

Critical Perspectives and Reform Debates

1. Concerns about Judicial Overreach

The ambiguous wording of Section 528, according to critics, encourages arbitrary interpretations. “Without clearer guidelines, inherent powers risk becoming a judicial wildcard,” says former Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium.

2. The necessity of standardized principles

To lessen inconsistencies, legal scholars recommend incorporating R.P. Kapoor’s ideas into the BNSS. In its 2024 report, the Law Commission suggests adding specific reasons for quashing to Section 528.

3. Issues with Accessibility

A large number of Section 528 applications, frequently from wealthy litigants, are filed with high courts in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Because underprivileged groups find it difficult to navigate the procedure, this raises questions about equity.

Conclusion: Balancing Discretion and Discipline

Section 528 BNSS embodies the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of justice, empowering High Courts to rectify procedural anomalies, curb malafide litigation, and adapt to evolving societal needs. While its roots trace back to Section 482 CrPC, the BNSS’s modern context demands renewed judicial vigilance in balancing statutory mandates with equitable discretion. As courts navigate transitional challenges and novel legal landscapes, the judicious exercise of inherent powers will remain pivotal in upholding the BNSS’s promise of a fair, efficient, and just criminal justice system.

Future Directions: Judicial training on the complex applications of Section 528 and legislative clarification regarding the relationship between BNSS and ongoing CrPC matters will strengthen the effectiveness of the law. It is also necessary for academic debate to assess whether the procedural innovations of the BNSS adequately fill historical gaps or if other reforms are required. Through the integration of legislative intent, court precedents, and current issues, this analysis highlights the inherent powers’ lasting significance in India’s criminal justice system. As the BNSS develops, Section 528 will surely continue to be a pillar of judicial creativity and fairness.

To read more blogs on similar topics click here.

This blog is written by Vinayak Manglik.