Section 144 was the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 that let a magistrate impose prohibitory orders in urgent situations, such as banning gatherings to prevent unrest. Since 1 July 2024 the CrPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and this same power now sits in Section 163 of the BNSS, though people still commonly call it ‘Section 144’.
What did Section 144 CrPC do?
Section 144 of the CrPC empowered an Executive Magistrate to issue an order to prevent an urgent nuisance or apprehended danger to public peace. The magistrate could direct a person to abstain from a certain act or to take a particular action with respect to property in their possession, where immediate prevention or speedy remedy was needed.
In everyday use, orders under Section 144 were most often associated with restrictions on public assembly. Authorities would prohibit the gathering of five or more people, ban the carrying of weapons, or restrict movement in a defined area during periods of tension, elections, examinations or communal sensitivity.
Where is Section 144 now, after the law changed?
On 1 July 2024, the CrPC was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prohibitory-order power that citizens knew as Section 144 was re-enacted, with essentially the same scope, as Section 163 of the BNSS. So a curfew-style order that would once have been issued ‘under Section 144’ is now issued ‘under Section 163 BNSS’.
The continuity is deliberate. The authority of the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the grounds of public order, safety and peace, the two-month default duration and the power to act ex parte in urgent cases all carry over. The successor provision also refers explicitly to directions concerning electronic communication, reflecting the realities of the digital age.
Beware the renumbering: what is Section 144 BNSS?
There is an important trap in the new numbering. In the BNSS, Section 144 no longer deals with prohibitory orders at all. Instead, Section 144 of the BNSS is the maintenance provision, the successor to Section 125 of the old CrPC, which governs orders for the maintenance of wives, children and parents.
This means the phrase ‘Section 144’ now points to two completely different subjects depending on which code is being cited. Under the old CrPC it meant prohibitory orders; under the new BNSS it means maintenance. Anyone reading news reports or notices during the transition should check whether the reference is to the CrPC or the BNSS.
How do the old and new provisions compare?
| Feature | Old law (CrPC, 1973) | New law (BNSS, 2023) |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibitory orders | Section 144 | Section 163 |
| Maintenance orders | Section 125 | Section 144 |
| Issuing authority | District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate | District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate |
| Default duration | Up to two months | Up to two months |
| Maximum with extension | Up to six months | Up to six months |
| Electronic communication | Not expressly mentioned | Expressly referred to |
Who can impose an order and for how long?
An order under Section 163 BNSS can be passed by a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the state government. It is meant for urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, where prompt action is required to protect public peace, safety or order.
Such an order generally remains in force for up to two months. The state government may, in specified circumstances, extend it, but it cannot ordinarily continue beyond six months from the date of the original order. The magistrate may also rescind or alter the order, either on their own motion or on an application by an affected person.
What restrictions can the order impose?
The most familiar use is to prohibit the assembly of five or more persons in a defined area, together with a ban on carrying lathis, weapons or other objects that could be used for violence. Orders may also restrict processions, loudspeakers or other activities likely to disturb the peace, and may address the misuse of electronic communication in specified situations.
Because the power restricts fundamental freedoms such as assembly and movement, courts have insisted that it be used carefully. Orders must be based on material showing a real and immediate risk, must be as narrow as the situation requires, and are open to challenge if they are vague, disproportionate or imposed as a routine measure rather than a genuine emergency response.
How is a Section 163 order different from a curfew?
In everyday speech, a Section 144 or Section 163 order is often described loosely as a ‘curfew’, but the two are not identical. A prohibitory order restricts specific activities, such as assembling in groups, carrying weapons or holding processions, while otherwise allowing normal life to continue. A curfew, by contrast, is a far more sweeping measure that requires people to stay indoors and clears the streets almost entirely.
A Section 163 order is therefore usually a lighter and more targeted tool than a full curfew, though in practice authorities may layer additional measures on top during serious disturbances. The distinction matters because the more severe the restriction, the stronger the justification a court will expect if the order is challenged.
Can a Section 163 order be challenged?
Yes. A person affected by an order may apply to the magistrate to rescind or alter it, and the magistrate is required to consider such an application and to record reasons if it is rejected. Beyond this, an order can be challenged before the High Court, which can examine whether the power was exercised lawfully and proportionately.
Courts have repeatedly held that this emergency power must not be used as a routine tool to suppress lawful protest. An order should rest on a genuine assessment of the material at hand, should be confined in area and duration to what the situation demands, and should not be vague or mechanical. Where these conditions are not met, the order is vulnerable to being set aside.
What happens if a person disobeys the order?
Breaking a lawfully issued prohibitory order is itself a criminal offence. Disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant is punishable under the penal code, and during the period an order is in force the police may detain those who defy it, for example by taking part in a banned assembly or carrying prohibited items in the restricted area.
The seriousness of the consequences is one reason why the scope and duration of an order matter so much. Because a citizen can face arrest and prosecution simply for acting contrary to the order, the law expects the underlying restriction to be clear, narrowly framed and genuinely justified by the circumstances, rather than sweeping or open-ended.
Why does Section 163 matter for accountability?
For readers who watch how state power is exercised, prohibitory orders are a recurring flashpoint. They can be essential to prevent riots or protect examinations and public events, but they can also curb peaceful protest if applied too readily or too widely. Knowing that the power now lives in Section 163 of the BNSS, and knowing its limits on duration, scope and justification, lets citizens judge whether a particular order is proportionate. The authoritative text of the BNSS is published by India Code, and independent analyses by PRS Legislative Research help compare the new section with its CrPC predecessor. Keeping track of when, where and why such orders are imposed, and whether they are lifted promptly once the danger passes, remains an important part of scrutinising how public-order powers are used.