This is a procedural and interim order. It decides nothing on the legality of any Section 163 BNSS order, nothing on the merits of any detention, arrest or police action pleaded in the tagged petitions, and nothing on the vires of Section 163 BNSS beyond declining to entertain that challenge in W.P.(C) No. 1335/2026. It issues notices, fixes return dates, preserves evidence, and lists the batch for further hearing on 3 November 2026.
- Case
- M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- The Chief Justice of India; Joymalya Bagchi
- Case numbers
- W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026
- Outcome
- Consolidated record of proceedings dated 15-10-2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026 (M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors.) and connected/tagged matters (Item Nos. 22 to 46, Court No. 1, PIL-W): notices issued with staggered return dates, interim preservation directions, tagging, and listing. No finding on the merits of any petition.
Consolidated order: evidence preserved, Section 163 orders to be filed, batch listed on 3 November
On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued a consolidated record of proceedings in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1333 of 2026, M A Baby versus the Union of India and others, together with its connected and tagged matters. The matters were heard in Court No. 1 by a Bench of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, covering Item Nos. 22 to 46 of the day's PIL-W cause list.
In the main block of the order, the Court issued notice in all the fresh matters and appointed nodal counsel on both sides: Ms. Aarthi Rajan for the petitioners and Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor for the respondents. The nodal counsel are to segregate the cases into broad categories on or before 28 October 2026, so that a separate and comprehensive counter affidavit may be filed for each group before the next date of hearing. The batch is listed on 3 November 2026.
The order's two interim directions are preservation and disclosure. As agreed among the parties, all law enforcement agencies are directed to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital evidence or material collected by them, and private parties are at liberty to file any such material they have collected before the Court. The Union of India is separately directed to place on record the order or orders promulgated under Section 163 of the BNSS in New Delhi, apart from the order dated 23 August 2026.
- Supreme Court: M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026 and connected matters, 15 October 2026 (official record of proceedings/order)Order pp. 17-18 (Date: 15-10-2026; CORAM: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi; Item Nos. 22 to 46, Court No. 1, Section PIL-W; cause title W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026, M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors.); operative paras 1-7 of the first order block: notice in fresh matters, nodal counsel and segregation by 28.10.2026, CCTV/digital-evidence preservation, s.163 BNSS orders on record, list on 03.11.2026
What the order puts on record: the batch, the parties and the signature
The record of proceedings runs to 20 pages and tags a large set of matters with the lead petition: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 844 of 2026, W.P.(Criminal) No. 429 of 2026, W.P.(C) Nos. 1334 and 1329 of 2026, and diary numbers 64174, 64371 and 64328 of 2026 are listed with Item No. 22, while Item Nos. 23 to 46 cover a further spread of civil writs (including Nos. 1354, 1353, 1351, 1364, 1361, 1363, 1348, 1360, 1357, 1366, 1336, 1335, 1338, 1365, 1359 of 2026), criminal writs (Nos. 434, 437, 417, 427 and 436 of 2026) and three contempt diaries (63921, 63943 and 63948 of 2026).
The order was digitally signed on 15 October 2026 at 23:06:33 IST by Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Arjun Bisht, with Preethi Dileep Kumar as Deputy Registrar. In a closing note, the Court recorded that Dr. N. Visakamurthy, the Advocate-on-Record who had accepted notice for the Union of India, had passed away following a cardiac arrest; the Court expressed its deepest condolences and gave the Union liberty to name another Advocate-on-Record.
Staggered notices: October 27, November 3 and November 5 return dates, one petition provisional
Three civil writs - Nos. 1353, 1351 and 1356 of 2026 - received notice returnable on 27 October 2026, with dasti service permitted and all three tagged with W.P.(Civil) No. 1246 of 2026. In W.P.(C) No. 1351 of 2026, the Court added a qualification: the petition on behalf of petitioner No. 6 is entertained only on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct. Replies are to be filed by the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) No. 1361 of 2026 drew notice returnable on 5 November 2026, with replies within two weeks. In that matter, senior counsel Indira Jaising agreed that the petitioner-association's collected material would be handed over during the day in a sealed envelope, along with the names of former judges, former police officers or other social activists, for the Court's consideration at an appropriate stage. The same block of the order directs that meanwhile no coercive action shall be taken against the woman journalist whose complaint with respect to alleged molestation is pending consideration. W.P.(C) No. 1360 of 2026 received notice returnable on 3 November 2026.
- Supreme Court: M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026 and connected matters, 15 October 2026 (official record of proceedings/order)Order pp. 18-19 (operative paras 1-6 for W.P.(C) Nos. 1353, 1351, 1356 of 2026 (Items 24, 25, 45): notice returnable 27.10.2026, dasti, tag with W.P.(C) 1246/2026, petitioner No. 6 in 1351/2026 provisional; operative paras 1-6 for W.P.(C) No. 1361/2026 (Item 27): notice returnable 05.11.2026, sealed-envelope material, no coercive action against the woman journalist; operative paras 1-4 for W.P.(C) No. 1360/2026 (Item 30): notice returnable 03.11.2026)
Section 163 BNSS vires not entertained; Section 172 notice kept; two criminal writs adjourned
In W.P.(C) No. 1335 of 2026, counsel made oral submissions on the vires of Section 163 of the BNSS. The Court recorded that it was not inclined to entertain that challenge, because the pari materia provision - Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - had been upheld in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (1961) 3 SCR 423. Notice was issued in that petition only on the limited question of the constitutionality of Section 172 of the BNSS, returnable on 19 November 2026.
Two criminal writs - W.P.(Criminal) No. 429 of 2026 and W.P.(Criminal) No. 427 of 2026 - which challenge the vires of the order or orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, were adjourned to 19 November 2026 without any interim observation recorded.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: why the preservation direction matters - and what it is not
The preservation direction is consent-based: the order says it was 'as agreed to among the parties' that all law enforcement agencies must preserve the CCTV footage and any other digital evidence or material they collected. A preservation direction does not admit any footage as evidence - it only stops the ordinary deletion cycle from destroying material that later fact-finding may need, since CCTV systems typically overwrite on a rolling cycle.
The direction also opens a private channel: private parties may file before the Court any such material they collected. Together, the two limbs let the Court assemble a record from both state and non-state sources while the petitions are pending - a standard technique where the dispute turns on what happened on the ground during protests, detentions and police action.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: nodal counsel and the 28 October segregation deadline
A batch of this size - 25 item groups spanning civil writs, criminal writs and contempt petitions - cannot be answered with a single counter affidavit. The nodal-counsel mechanism and the 28 October segregation deadline build a pleading architecture: each group of petitions gets a separate, comprehensive counter affidavit tracking the distinct legal questions it raises.
Students should also notice the rhythm of the return dates: 27 October for the 1353/1351/1356 group, 3 November for the main batch and the 1360 writ, 5 November for the 1361 writ, and 19 November for the Section 172 BNSS question and the two criminal writs. Staggered dates let the Court hear the most time-sensitive questions first while giving the respondents realistic time to file category-wise counters.
What the order does not decide - and the takeaway for law students
The order decides nothing on whether any Section 163 BNSS prohibitory order was lawful, nothing on the merits of any detention, arrest, device seizure or use of force pleaded in the tagged petitions, and nothing on the constitutionality of Section 163 BNSS beyond declining to entertain that challenge in one petition. The notice issued to the Union in the fresh matters is the start of adjudication, not its result; the 'no coercive action' protection for the woman journalist is an interim, complaint-linked direction, not a finding on the complaint itself.
For law students, the teaching points are compact: (1) a consolidated record of proceedings is a case-management instrument - notices, tagging, nodal counsel and return dates - and must be read for what it orders, not for what the underlying petitions allege; (2) a refusal to entertain a vires challenge on the strength of a pari materia precedent (Babulal Parate on Section 144 CrPC) is not a ruling on the new provision, which is why the Court kept Section 172 BNSS alive for argument; (3) interim directions like evidence preservation buy the Court the factual record it will later need, and their consent basis ('as agreed to among the parties') is part of what makes them effective.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The Court declined to entertain the challenge to the vires of Section 163 BNSS in W.P.(C) No. 1335/2026, citing Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, yet issued notice on the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS. What is the doctrinal difference the Court drew between the two provisions, and why does the Babulal Parate precedent apply to one and not the other?
- The order directs that 'all the Law Enforcement Agencies are directed to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital evidence/material collected by them', and that the direction was 'as agreed to among the parties'. Why does a consent-based preservation direction matter for future fact-finding in this batch, and what limits does it have as a source of evidence?
- Nodal counsel were appointed to segregate the tagged matters into broad categories so that 'a separate and comprehensive counter affidavit may be filed in respect of each group'. What case-management problem does this solve in a 25-matter batch, and what risk would a single omnibus counter affidavit pose?
