Section 172 BNSS Explained: Can Police Detain You for Disobeying Their Orders? Is This New Law Constitutional?

Can the police detain a person for refusing to follow their directions? Can someone be detained merely for attending a peaceful protest? Does Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) give the police unlimited power? And why is the Supreme Court now examining its constitutional validity?

These questions have become especially important amid recent protests in Delhi and concerns about the use of police powers against demonstrators, students, activists and other members of the public.

Section 172 BNSS deals with the obligation to follow lawful directions given by police officers while performing specified preventive duties. It also permits detention or removal in certain circumstances. Critics argue that the provision may be used too broadly because it does not itself spell out detailed safeguards governing every situation in which a person can be detained.

On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 172. The Court directed the Union Government to respond, with the matter listed for further consideration on 19 November 2026. The provision has not been declared unconstitutional merely because the Court has issued notice. The challenge remains pending. <Cite refs={[“turn665480search1″,”turn665480search2”]} />

This article explains Section 172 in simple language, why it is being challenged, what the police can and cannot do, the relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions, and the legal remedies available to a person who believes the provision has been misused.

1. What is Section 172 of the BNSS?

Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is titled “Persons bound to conform to lawful directions of police.”

The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to the applicable transitional and territorial provisions.

Section 172 provides:

Subsection (1): All persons must comply with lawful directions given by a police officer in the performance of duties under Chapter XII of the BNSS.

Subsection (2): A police officer may detain or remove a person who resists, refuses, ignores or disregards a direction under subsection (1). The officer may take the person before a Magistrate or, in petty cases, release them as soon as possible within 24 hours.

The complete provision is available in the official text of the BNSS. <Cite refs={[“turn750763search35″,”turn750763search34”]} />

The words that matter most are “lawful directions” and “under this Chapter.”

Section 172 does not say that every instruction given by a police officer must be followed regardless of its legality, purpose or circumstances. The direction must fall within the officer’s lawful duties under Chapter XII, which deals with preventive action by the police.

This qualification is important when assessing whether detention under Section 172 is legally justified.

2. What police powers does Chapter XII cover?

Section 172 cannot be properly understood in isolation. It forms part of Chapter XII of the BNSS, which deals with preventive police action.

The chapter contains the following provisions:

Provision	Subject
Section 168	Police duty to prevent cognizable offences
Section 169	Communication of information about a design to commit a cognizable offence
Section 170	Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences
Section 171	Prevention of injury to public property
Section 172	Compliance with lawful police directions

These provisions are designed to help police prevent offences and protect public property. Section 172 operates within that statutory context; it should not be read as an unlimited power to detain anyone for any reason.

For example, if the police are lawfully preventing an imminent cognizable offence or intervening to protect public property, directions given in the discharge of those duties may fall within the chapter.

But if a person is detained merely because they peacefully disagree with the police, or because the police issue an instruction that has no lawful basis under the relevant provisions, the legality of the action may be challenged.

The facts and the precise direction given are therefore crucial.

3. Why is Section 172 BNSS being challenged before the Supreme Court?

The challenge concerns the scope of police power and whether Section 172 contains sufficient safeguards against arbitrary detention.

A petition filed by B.Tech student Samriddhi Das reportedly challenges the provision on the ground that it permits police officers to detain or remove people for refusing or disregarding directions without sufficiently clear safeguards.

The petition invokes Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Among the concerns raised are the absence of an express requirement for recorded reasons, the risk of subjective police decisions and the possibility of detention without adequate judicial scrutiny.

The challenge arose amid police action connected with a protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 10 October 2026. Reports described demonstrators, students, activists, lawyers and others being intercepted or detained while attempting to reach the protest venue. <Cite refs={[“turn665480search4″,”turn665480search7”]} />

The constitutional concern is not that police should be unable to prevent offences. The concern is whether the law gives police an excessively broad discretion to decide when a person’s refusal to comply justifies detention.

The key questions include:

• Does the provision adequately define the circumstances in which a direction can be issued?
• Can a person be detained merely because a police officer considers them to be disobeying an instruction?
• What safeguards exist against arbitrary or disproportionate action?
• Can the provision be used to prevent people from reaching a peaceful protest?
• Is there adequate protection for personal liberty under Article 21?
• Does the law satisfy the requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14?

These are constitutional questions for judicial determination. The petitioner’s allegations are not, by themselves, findings that the provision is unconstitutional.

4. What has the Supreme Court said about the constitutional challenge?

On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on the challenge to Section 172 BNSS and directed the Union Government to file its response within two weeks. The matter was reported as listed for 19 November 2026.

The Court did not, at that stage, strike down Section 172 or declare it unconstitutional. Issuing notice means that the Court is calling upon the respondents to answer the challenge.

The Court also dealt with challenges concerning Section 163 BNSS, which empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue certain urgent orders to prevent danger or disturbance of public tranquillity. The Court was not inclined to entertain the broad constitutional challenge to Section 163 at that stage because the corresponding provision, Section 144 of the former CrPC, had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra.

However, the Court agreed to examine challenges to individual prohibitory orders and separately issued notice on the constitutional challenge to Section 172. <Cite refs={[“turn665480search1″,”turn665480search2″,”turn665480search8”]} />

This distinction matters. Section 163 and Section 172 perform different functions and must not be confused.

The legal status as of 17 October 2026 is that Section 172 remains in force, while its constitutional validity is under challenge before the Supreme Court. The final outcome may clarify the limits of police directions and detention powers.

5. Is Section 172 BNSS unconstitutional?

At present, it would be legally incorrect to state that Section 172 has been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has issued notice, but the challenge is pending.

There are, however, substantial constitutional questions raised by the provision.

A. Article 14: Protection against arbitrary State action

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

A statutory power that permits detention must operate according to lawful standards. If a provision is interpreted or applied in a manner that allows arbitrary, discriminatory or irrational detention, the action may be vulnerable to challenge under Article 14.

The constitutional question is whether the statutory framework, properly interpreted, contains sufficient limits on the exercise of power.

B. Article 19: Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b) protects the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms.

These rights are subject to the constitutionally permitted restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), respectively.

The police can lawfully regulate protests in appropriate circumstances. However, if Section 172 is used to detain people simply for expressing disagreement or peacefully attempting to assemble, the action may raise serious constitutional questions.

The right to protest does not create immunity from lawful police directions. Equally, the power to maintain public order cannot be treated as permission to suppress peaceful dissent without legal justification.

C. Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Detention is a serious interference with personal liberty. The legality of detention must therefore be examined against the applicable statute and constitutional safeguards.

The constitutional concern is especially significant where a person is detained without a clear explanation of the lawful direction allegedly disobeyed, or where the detention appears to be used to prevent peaceful participation in a protest.

D. The principle of proportionality

Even when the police have a lawful objective, the means used must be justified by the circumstances and applicable law.

For example, if a person can be directed to move away from a dangerous area, immediate detention may not always be necessary. Conversely, if a person is actively obstructing a lawful preventive operation or refusing a direction needed to prevent an imminent offence, stronger intervention may be justified.

The legality of the action depends on the circumstances, not merely on whether the police describe the situation as a law-and-order issue.

The important qualification

A court may uphold a provision by interpreting it consistently with the Constitution, strike it down wholly or partly, or reject the challenge. The result depends on the statutory language, the arguments and the judicial findings.

Until the Supreme Court decides the challenge, the strongest legally accurate position is that Section 172 raises a pending constitutional question; it has not been conclusively held unconstitutional.

6. Can police detain someone under Section 172 for attending a peaceful protest?

Not automatically.

The fact that a person is attending a peaceful protest does not, by itself, establish that the person has resisted or disregarded a lawful direction given under Chapter XII.

The police must be able to identify the direction, explain its lawful basis and justify the action taken under the statute.

Consider three examples.

Example 1: A person peacefully attends a demonstration.

There is no violence or obstruction, and no relevant lawful direction under Chapter XII has been disobeyed. Attendance alone does not automatically establish a basis for detention under Section 172.

Example 2: Police lawfully direct people to move away from an area where an imminent offence is being prevented.

If the direction is within the officer’s lawful duties under Chapter XII and a person resists or disregards it, Section 172 may become relevant, subject to the statutory requirements and the circumstances.

Example 3: A person is intercepted far from the protest venue simply because police suspect that they intend to participate in a demonstration.

The legality of detention in such circumstances requires careful scrutiny. A general suspicion that someone plans to protest does not, without more, answer whether a lawful direction under Chapter XII has been given and disobeyed.

If the person believes they were detained without legal authority, they may challenge the action through the appropriate legal process.

7. Does Section 172 allow police to detain a person for 24 hours?

Section 172(2) states that a police officer may detain or remove a person who resists, refuses, ignores or disregards a direction under subsection (1), and may take that person before a Magistrate or, in petty cases, release them as soon as possible within a period of 24 hours.

The wording should be read carefully.

The section does not say that the police may automatically keep every person for 24 hours. It refers to release as soon as possible within 24 hours in petty cases.

Nor does it authorise detention for any reason whatsoever. The detention must arise from the circumstances covered by the provision.

Where further detention is sought under another provision of law, the legal basis and procedural requirements for that separate detention must be examined.

A person who is detained should seek to understand the legal basis for the action and, where necessary, obtain legal assistance.

8. Is Section 172 a criminal offence? Can police register an FIR under this section alone?

This is an especially important legal issue, and the Madras High Court has addressed it directly.

Section 172 establishes an obligation to comply with lawful police directions and provides a power to detain or remove persons in the specified circumstances. It is not, by itself, a standalone penal provision prescribing a criminal punishment for every refusal to comply.

That distinction matters because a statutory power to detain and a statutory offence are not the same thing.

Whether a separate criminal offence has been committed depends on the applicable penal provision and the facts. If police allege an independent offence—such as assault, obstruction or another offence under the relevant law—that allegation must be assessed separately.

Madras High Court: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. State

Case: Crl. O.P. No. 429 of 2026, decided on 22 January 2026.

In this case, proceedings had been initiated under Section 172 BNSS following a protest that allegedly took place without prior permission and caused public disturbance.

The petitioner argued that Section 172 was not a penal provision and could not itself support registration of a criminal case.

The Madras High Court relied on the earlier decision in Yasar Arafath v. State, which concerned the corresponding preventive provision under the former CrPC. The Court held that Section 172 was not a penal provision and that no case could be registered under it alone in the circumstances before the Court.

The Court quashed the proceedings arising from the impugned FIR. <Cite refs={[“turn665480search0”]} />

Why this judgment matters: It provides direct judicial authority that Section 172 should not be treated as a standalone offence merely because a person is alleged to have disobeyed a police direction.

However, the judgment does not mean that every action taken during a protest is immune from prosecution. If the facts disclose a separate offence under another applicable provision, the legal position must be examined independently.

9. What is the difference between Section 172 and Section 163 BNSS?

The two provisions are often confused because both can become relevant during protests.

Point	Section 172 BNSS	Section 163 BNSS
Main purpose	Compliance with lawful police directions given in the discharge of duties under Chapter XII	Urgent orders to prevent specified danger, obstruction or disturbance of public tranquillity
Who exercises the power?	Police officers, within the scope of Chapter XII	An empowered Executive Magistrate or other authority specified by law
Nature of power	Direction, detention or removal in the specified circumstances	Preventive orders restricting particular acts, gatherings or conduct
Is it a standalone penal offence?	No, not by itself	No, an order under Section 163 is a preventive measure; separate legal consequences may arise from its violation
Relevant legal question	Was there a lawful direction under Chapter XII, and was the response legally justified?	Was the prohibitory order lawfully issued, justified by the circumstances and properly applied?

Section 163 broadly corresponds to Section 144 of the former CrPC. Section 172 is a new provision in the BNSS and does not have a direct equivalent in the former Code. <Cite refs={[“turn750763search34″,”turn665480search3”]} />

This distinction is important in litigation. A challenge to a prohibitory order under Section 163 is not the same as a challenge to detention under Section 172.

10. What are the legal consequences of misuse of Section 172?

If Section 172 is invoked without satisfying the statutory requirements, the affected person may have grounds to challenge the action.

The possible consequences depend on the facts, the nature of the police conduct and the relief granted by the competent court.

A. Quashing of an FIR or criminal proceedings

If an FIR has been registered under Section 172 alone, without a legally sustainable basis for a criminal offence, the affected person may seek quashing under Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers.

The Madras High Court’s decision in C. Ve. Shanmugam v. State is relevant to this issue.

B. Challenge to unlawful detention

A person who believes they have been unlawfully detained may seek appropriate judicial relief. The remedy may include a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, depending on the circumstances and whether the detention is continuing.

C. Compensation in appropriate cases

Compensation may be considered where unlawful detention or a violation of fundamental rights is established and the applicable legal principles support such relief.

However, compensation is not automatic every time a person is detained and later released. The legal basis, evidence and nature of the violation matter.

D. Departmental or other legal action

If there is evidence of misconduct, abuse of authority or unlawful use of force, a complaint may be made to the appropriate supervisory authority or other competent forum.

The availability of a particular remedy depends on the nature of the conduct and the applicable law.

E. Protection of evidence

Where a person alleges that detention was unlawful, they should preserve available evidence, including videos, photographs, messages, witness details, medical records and the time and location of the incident.

Such evidence may assist the court in determining whether the police action was lawful and proportionate.

11. What legal remedies are available if you are detained under Section 172?

A person who believes that Section 172 has been misused should consider the following steps.

Step 1: Identify the legal basis of the direction

Record the precise instruction allegedly given by the police, the officer who gave it, the time and place, and the circumstances in which it was issued.

Where possible, obtain the written order or any available record of the direction.

Step 2: Preserve evidence

Preserve video footage, photographs, witness details, messages, call records and other material relevant to the detention.

If the incident occurred at a protest venue or transport station, note the location and the time. Where relevant, seek preservation of CCTV footage before it is overwritten.

Step 3: Obtain legal assistance

A lawyer can examine whether the direction was lawful under Chapter XII, whether the facts justified detention or removal and whether a separate offence has been alleged.

Step 4: Seek release or challenge continued detention

If the person remains in custody, the appropriate legal remedy will depend on the legal basis of detention and the stage of the proceedings.

A habeas corpus petition under Article 226 may be considered in a suitable case involving unlawful detention. Other statutory remedies may be available depending on the circumstances.

Step 5: Challenge an FIR registered solely under Section 172

Where proceedings have been initiated under Section 172 alone, the affected person may consider seeking quashing under Section 528 BNSS, relying on the applicable facts and relevant judicial authority.

The Madras High Court’s decision in C. Ve. Shanmugam may be particularly relevant, though its application to another case must be assessed carefully.

Step 6: Consider compensation or a complaint against misconduct

Where evidence establishes unlawful detention, excessive force or another legal violation, the person may consider appropriate proceedings for compensation or accountability.

The correct forum and remedy will depend on the nature of the violation, the available evidence and the applicable law.

12. Important Supreme Court judgments on preventive police powers and peaceful protest

Although the constitutional challenge to Section 172 is pending, established Supreme Court judgments on personal liberty, preventive powers and peaceful assembly remain relevant.

A. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: AIR 1961 SC 884; (1961) 3 SCR 423.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the former Section 144 CrPC in the context of the challenge before it.

This judgment is relevant to Section 163 BNSS, which corresponds broadly to the former Section 144. It should not be treated as a decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS, which is a separate provision.

B. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad

Citation: (1973) 1 SCC 227.

The Supreme Court considered the regulation of public meetings and the use of public places for assemblies.

The judgment recognises that public meetings may be regulated in the interests of public order, but regulation cannot be used as an arbitrary or unrestricted power to prevent peaceful assembly.

Relevance: Police may regulate demonstrations, but the regulation must operate within the limits of law.

C. In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India

Citation: (2012) 5 SCC 1.

The Supreme Court examined police action against persons participating in a gathering at Ramlila Maidan.

The judgment discusses the importance of peaceful assembly, the rights of participants and the legal limits on State action.

Relevance: Public-order concerns do not automatically justify every form of police intervention. The circumstances and proportionality of the action matter.

D. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India

Citation: (2018) 17 SCC 324.

The Supreme Court considered the competing interests involved in public demonstrations, including the rights of protesters and those affected by the use of public spaces.

The judgment recognises the importance of peaceful protest while also acknowledging that authorities may regulate demonstrations to protect public order and the rights of others.

Relevance: Restrictions must balance the right to protest against other legitimate interests. The judgment does not create an unrestricted right to occupy public spaces or disregard lawful directions.

E. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police

Citation: (2020) 10 SCC 439.

This case arose from the Shaheen Bagh protest and addressed the obstruction of public roads.

The Supreme Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely in a manner that prevents others from using them, and that the authorities must take appropriate steps to maintain access.

Relevance: The right to protest and the need to maintain public access must be balanced. The decision does not authorise arbitrary detention merely because someone wishes to protest.

These judgments provide constitutional context for the Section 172 challenge. They do not, however, determine the validity of Section 172 itself.

13. Myth vs Reality: Section 172 BNSS and police detention

Myth 1: Police can detain anyone for disobeying any instruction.

Reality: Section 172 concerns lawful directions given by police officers while performing duties under Chapter XII. The statutory context and legality of the direction matter.

Myth 2: Section 172 itself creates a criminal offence.

Reality: Section 172 is not a standalone penal provision prescribing a criminal punishment. A separate offence must be supported by the applicable law and facts.

Myth 3: Police can automatically keep a person for 24 hours under Section 172.

Reality: The provision refers to release as soon as possible within 24 hours in petty cases. It does not create an automatic 24-hour detention entitlement in every case.

Myth 4: Section 172 has already been declared unconstitutional.

Reality: The Supreme Court issued notice on the constitutional challenge in October 2026. The provision remains in force pending the Court’s decision.

Myth 5: Anyone who attends a protest can be detained under Section 172.

Reality: Attendance alone does not establish that a lawful direction under Chapter XII was disobeyed. The facts and the statutory requirements must be examined.

Myth 6: Police can never intervene in a peaceful protest.

Reality: Police may regulate demonstrations and take lawful preventive action where the legal requirements are satisfied. The power must be exercised within the law and cannot be treated as an unrestricted authority to suppress dissent.

Myth 7: If an FIR is registered under Section 172, the person must face a criminal trial.

Reality: Where proceedings are based on Section 172 alone, the affected person may have grounds to seek quashing. The Madras High Court has quashed proceedings on this basis, but the precise facts and any other alleged offences must be examined.

14. Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 172 BNSS in simple words?

Section 172 requires people to follow lawful police directions given while officers perform specified preventive duties under Chapter XII. It also permits detention or removal in the circumstances described in subsection (2).

Why is Section 172 BNSS under challenge?

The challenge argues that the provision gives police broad discretion to detain or remove people without sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action. The petition raises issues under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Has the Supreme Court struck down Section 172?

No. As of 17 October 2026, the Supreme Court has issued notice on the constitutional challenge, and the matter remains pending.

Can police register an FIR under Section 172 alone?

The Madras High Court held in C. Ve. Shanmugam v. State, decided on 22 January 2026, that Section 172 is not a penal provision and quashed proceedings registered under it in the circumstances before the Court. A separate offence, if alleged, must be assessed independently.

Can police detain someone travelling to a protest?

The legality depends on the circumstances. The fact that someone is travelling to attend a protest does not, by itself, establish that a lawful direction under Chapter XII has been disobeyed. Any detention must have a valid legal basis.

What is the difference between Section 172 and Section 163 BNSS?

Section 172 concerns compliance with specified lawful police directions and detention or removal in certain circumstances. Section 163 empowers an authorised Magistrate to issue urgent preventive orders in specified circumstances. They serve different legal purposes.

Can a person claim compensation for unlawful detention under Section 172?

Potentially, in an appropriate case where unlawful detention or a violation of fundamental rights is established and the relevant legal principles support compensation. It is not automatic.

15. Conclusion: Can Section 172 be used to detain people arbitrarily?

Section 172 BNSS is intended to support preventive police duties. It requires compliance with lawful directions given within the scope of Chapter XII and permits detention or removal in specified circumstances.

The constitutional concern arises when the provision is interpreted or used in a way that allows detention without a sufficiently lawful basis or adequate safeguards.

The Supreme Court’s decision to examine the provision’s constitutional validity is therefore significant. It may clarify the relationship between preventive policing, personal liberty and the right to peaceful protest.

For now, however, the legal position must be stated carefully: Section 172 remains in force, its constitutional validity is under challenge, and the final outcome is awaited. The Madras High Court has separately held that the provision is not a standalone penal provision and quashed proceedings registered under it in the case before it.

The essential principle is that the police have a duty to prevent offences and maintain public order, but their powers must be exercised within the law. A direction must be lawful, and detention must have a legally sustainable basis.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. The constitutional challenge to Section 172 is pending, and the law may develop further. Anyone affected by a detention, FIR or police direction should obtain advice based on the actual documents and facts.