top of page
Search

'Metropolitan Area' and the Metropolitan Magistracy Under CrPC: Constitutional Basis and Distinction from Ordinary Magistracy

'Metropolitan Area' and the Metropolitan Magistracy Under CrPC:


Table of Contents



The criminal courts of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, and Ahmedabad were once governed by a category of Magistrates that did not exist anywhere else in India. They were called Presidency Magistrates — a legacy of the colonial administrative arrangement in the Presidency towns, retained by independent India because the special problems of vast urban centres, with sophisticated crime and crushing volumes of cases, were felt to justify a dedicated judicial arrangement.


The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 formalised and extended this arrangement, renamed the institution the Metropolitan Magistracy, anchored it in a defined legal concept of the metropolitan area, and gave it a constitutional basis. The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has now abolished it — but understanding what the metropolitan magistracy was, how it was structured, and how it differed from the ordinary Judicial Magistracy, remains essential for practice and examination under the CrPC, which continues to govern cases registered before the BNSS came into force.


Section 2(k) CrPC: The Definition of Metropolitan Area


Section 2(k) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines "metropolitan area" as the area declared, or deemed to be declared, under Section 8, to be a metropolitan area. The definition is referential — it points to Section 8 as the operative provision that creates, modifies, and extinguishes metropolitan areas. Section 2(k) was a new provision inserted by the 1973 Code. Under the old Code, in the absence of a definition of "Presidency town", the local jurisdiction of Presidency Magistrates had to be determined with reference to old Section 20, and various contested jurisdictional questions arose, including whether a Presidency Magistrate could try an offence committed during a voyage on the high sea, or whether his jurisdiction was limited to the port area up to the high watermark. The new Code resolved all such uncertainty by tying the definition of metropolitan area directly to a notification process under Section 8.


Section 8 CrPC: How a Metropolitan Area Is Created and Lost


Section 8 of the Code is the foundational provision for the creation and regulation of metropolitan areas. It creates the concept, defines its threshold, provides for its expansion and contraction, and protects pending proceedings from being disrupted by boundary changes.


Sub-section (1): Declaration by the State Government

Section 8(1) empowers the State Government to declare, by notification, that any area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million shall be a metropolitan area for the purposes of the Code. The power is that of the State Government, the condition is population above one million, and the medium is a notification specifying the effective date. The State Government has the power to extend, reduce, or alter the limits of a declared metropolitan area under sub-section (3), but such reduction or alteration cannot be so made as to reduce the population of the area below one million — the declaration would lose its basis if the population threshold were allowed to fall below the qualifying floor.


Sub-section (2): Deemed Metropolitan Areas

Section 8(2) provided that as from the commencement of the Code, each of the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras and the city of Ahmedabad shall be deemed to have been declared metropolitan areas. This deeming provision was historically important: it preserved the special magisterial arrangement in the Presidency towns without requiring fresh notifications, and extended the same arrangement to Ahmedabad — which was not a Presidency town but had by then acquired the scale and character that made the extended arrangement appropriate.


Sub-sections (3)–(5): Modification, Cessation, and Protection of Pending Proceedings

Sub-sections (3)–(5) govern the dynamics of change. Sub-section (3) permits extension, reduction, or alteration of a metropolitan area's limits, subject to the one-million minimum. Sub-section (4) provides that if, after declaration, the population of the area falls below one million, the State Government may, by notification, declare that the area has ceased to be a metropolitan area from a specified date. However — and this is the legal protection provision — any inquiry, trial, or appeal pending immediately before such cessation shall continue to be dealt with under the Code as if the cessation had not taken place. The same protection applies under sub-section (5) when the limits of a metropolitan area are reduced or altered: pending proceedings are unaffected.


The Population Explanation

The Explanation to Section 8 clarifies that "population" for the purpose of the one-million threshold means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. This is a practical provision: it pegs the population determination to a fixed, published datum, rather than to any ongoing or interpolated estimate.


Section 7 CrPC: Metropolitan Area as a Separate Sessions Division and District


One of the most significant structural consequences of a metropolitan area declaration is found in the proviso to Section 7(1) CrPC — the territorial division section. Every State is divided into sessions divisions and districts. The proviso provides that every metropolitan area shall, for the purposes of the Code, be a separate sessions division and district.

This provision has important practical consequences. A Court of Session must be established for every sessions division under Section 9(1). Since a metropolitan area is a separate sessions division, it must have its own Court of Session.


Similarly, since a metropolitan area is a separate district, it must have its own Executive Magistrate establishment under Section 20. This is the provision that gives the metropolitan area its administrative self-containment within the criminal justice framework — it is not merely a special sub-area of an existing district but a self-standing unit. As the source commentary notes, this new provision incorporated into the Code a similar arrangement that had previously been introduced in West Bengal by Act 20 of 1953 and in Bombay by Act 23 of 1951.


Historical Background: From Presidency Magistrates to Metropolitan Magistrates


The origins of the metropolitan magistracy lie in the colonial arrangement for the three Presidency towns. Under the old Code, magisterial functions in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras — mostly of a judicial nature — were discharged by a special category of officers called Presidency Magistrates. Persons appointed to these posts typically had special qualifications or experience and were paid higher emoluments than the ordinary district Magistrates. Although the reasons for this special arrangement were primarily historical, the system had been found useful for large cities where crimes were more sophisticated and the volume of work was heavy, requiring quicker disposal.


The Law Commission, in its Thirty-Seventh Report (paras 69, 101) and its Forty-First Report (para 2.11), recommended the continuance of the Presidency Magistrates on the ground that the special problems of big cities deserved special treatment. However, the Commission noted that the designation "Presidency town" had become a misnomer owing to changes in historical background, and there was no reason to confine the special magistracy to the three Presidency towns when it could be extended to all big cities declared as metropolitan areas. Agreeing with this reasoning, the 1973 Code not only continued the institution but generalised it: the name "Presidency Magistrate" was changed to "Metropolitan Magistrate", and any city with a population above one million could be declared a metropolitan area, enabling the establishment of the metropolitan magistracy there.


Under the old Code, in Presidency towns and certain other cities, there were no District Magistrates and some functions of a District Magistrate were discharged by the Commissioner of Police and some by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The Law Commission recommended that these cities should also have District Magistrates and Sub-divisional Magistrates like other areas. This recommendation — implemented by the 1973 Code — means that the metropolitan area has both a metropolitan judicial magistracy (under the new Sections 16-19) and a District Magistrate and Executive Magistrate establishment (under Section 20) for the executive functions that remained outside the judiciary.


The Constitutional Basis: Articles 236 and 237


The constitutional foundation of the metropolitan magistracy lies in Articles 236 and 237 of the Constitution of India. Article 236 defines the term "district judge" for the purposes of Part VI of the Constitution, and Article 237 enables the Governor of a State — in consultation with the High Court — to apply the provisions governing district judges and other judicial officers in the districts to any class or classes of Magistrates in the State. Both Judicial Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates are recruited by the High Court from the same sources under Articles 236-237.


As the source commentary on Section 19 explicitly confirms, this constitutional uniformity in recruitment is why the subordination structure of Metropolitan Magistrates mirrors that of Judicial Magistrates — both are equally placed under the supervision of the Sessions Judge and ultimately under the control of the High Court.


The Architecture of the Metropolitan Magistracy: Sections 16–19 CrPC


The metropolitan magistracy is organised through Sections 16–19 of the Code, which together constitute the structural framework for the category.


Section 16: Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates — Appointment and Jurisdiction


Section 16(1) CrPC provides that in every metropolitan area there shall be established as many Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates, and at such places, as the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specifies. The number and location of courts is thus a joint determination of the State Government and the High Court — the executive fixes the number in consultation with the judiciary.


Section 16(2) provides that the presiding officers of such Courts — the Metropolitan Magistrates themselves — shall be appointed by the High Court. This distinguishes them from Executive Magistrates, who are appointed by the State Government without consulting the High Court.


Section 16(3) lays down the jurisdictional rule: the jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area. This is a deliberately wide grant: there are no internal sub-divisions of jurisdiction within a metropolitan area for the purposes of Metropolitan Magistrates. All Metropolitan Magistrates in the same metropolitan area have jurisdiction over the entire area concurrently. As Sevantilal v. State (AIR 1969 Guj 63) confirmed, this extends to any jail or port situated within the area (Ganpat v. Good, (1919) 47 Cal 147).


The concurrence of jurisdiction also means that when a complaint is dismissed by one Metropolitan Magistrate, it cannot be revived by another Metropolitan Magistrate on the same facts (Girish, 24 Cal 528).

There will be no Benches of Metropolitan Magistrates — the old provision for such benches (old Section 19) was omitted from the new Code.


Section 17: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate


Section 17(1) CrPC provides that the High Court shall, in relation to every metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction, appoint a Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such metropolitan area. Under the old Code, this appointment was made by the State Government — the 1973 Code shifted it to the High Court, reinforcing judicial independence and constitutional propriety.


Section 17(2) empowers the High Court to appoint any Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the High Court may direct. Under the old Code, the powers of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate were defined by the State Government; the new Code shifted this power to the High Court as well. The allocation of business to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, remains within the competence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 19(3).


Section 18: Special Metropolitan Magistrates


Section 18(1) CrPC empowers the High Court, if requested by the Central or State Government, to confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable on a Metropolitan Magistrate, in respect of particular cases or classes of cases in any metropolitan area. Such Magistrates are called Special Metropolitan Magistrates and are appointed for a term not exceeding one year at a time.


The provision mirrors Section 13 for Special Judicial Magistrates. A Special Metropolitan Magistrate can be vested with powers of a Magistrate of the second class. Under sub-section (3), the High Court or State Government may empower a Special Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class outside his metropolitan area — providing flexibility at the boundary between metropolitan and non-metropolitan territories.


The constitutional validity of Section 18(1) was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that it enabled the High Court to appoint government servants as Magistrates, allegedly violating Article 14 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court had struck down those words as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar ((1997) 4 SCC 287), overruled the Madras High Court judgment and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18(1).


Section 19: Subordination of Metropolitan Magistrates


Section 19(1) CrPC lays down the subordination chain:

  • The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge.

  • Every other Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.


Under the old Code, there was no provision for the subordination of the Chief and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate to any Sessions Judge. The change in the 1973 Code — placing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the Sessions Judge — was made at the Rajya Sabha stage of the Bill, in order to place all Judicial Magistrates whether within or outside metropolitan areas equally under the subordination of the Sessions Judge. This change was consistent with the fact that there shall be a Sessions Judge in a metropolitan area as well, and that both Judicial Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates are recruited by the High Court from the same sources under Articles 236-237 of the Constitution.


Section 19(2) allows the High Court to define the extent of the subordination of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Under sub-section (3), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may make rules or give special orders for the distribution of business among Metropolitan Magistrates and the allocation of business to an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.


Section 3 CrPC: The Construction of References — Metropolitan Equivalents


Section 3 CrPC is the provision that makes the two magistracies functionally interchangeable throughout the Code. It establishes a complete system of equivalences:

  • Any reference, without qualifying words, to a Magistrate shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 3(1)(a)(ii)].

  • Any reference to a Magistrate of the first class shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area [Section 3(1)(c)(i)].

  • Any reference to a Magistrate of the second class shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 3(1)(b)].

  • Any reference to the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 3(1)(d)].

  • Any reference to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for that area [Section 3(2)].


Additionally, under Section 3(3), any reference in any enactment passed before the commencement of the Code to a Presidency Magistrate or Chief Presidency Magistrate shall be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate respectively.

This construction mechanism ensures that the entire Code and all pre-Code enactments operate correctly within metropolitan areas without any provision having to specify the metropolitan equivalent in every section.


The Detailed Comparison: Metropolitan Magistracy vs. Ordinary Judicial Magistracy


With the architecture of both magistracies in view, the distinctions — and the parallel structure — between them can be set out systematically.


Appointment Authority


Both Judicial Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates are appointed by the High Court [Sections 11(2) and 16(2) respectively]. This common constitutional basis is the most fundamental similarity. Executive Magistrates, by contrast, are appointed by the State Government without even consulting the High Court.


Territorial Jurisdiction


A Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction extends over the local limits of his district — or such local area within it as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may fix [Section 14(1)].

A Metropolitan Magistrate's jurisdiction extends throughout the metropolitan area — the entire metropolitan area is the single jurisdictional unit for all Metropolitan Magistrates. There is no further sub-division of jurisdiction. All Metropolitan Magistrates in the same metropolitan area have concurrent jurisdiction over the whole area.


Internal Hierarchy and Categories


Judicial Magistracy has: Chief Judicial Magistrate (Section 12(1)); Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Section 12(2)); Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (Section 12(3)); Judicial Magistrate of the First Class; Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class; Special Judicial Magistrate (Section 13).


Metropolitan Magistracy has: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Section 17(1)); Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Section 17(2)); Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Section 18); and Metropolitan Magistrates generally (Section 16). There is no Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate on the judicial side — for reasons explained below.


Subordination Structure


The subordination tables for both are structurally identical:

Ordinary Magistracy

Metropolitan Magistracy

Chief Judicial Magistrate → Sessions Judge [S. 15(1)]

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate → Sessions Judge [S. 19(1)]

All other Judicial Magistrates → Chief Judicial Magistrate [S. 15(1)]

All other Metropolitan Magistrates → Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [S. 19(1)]

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate → Chief Judicial Magistrate [S. 15(1)]

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate → extent defined by High Court [S. 19(2)]


The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has no equivalent of Section 19(2); his subordination is automatic under Section 15(1). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's subordination is more flexible — defined by the High Court under Section 19(2).


Sentencing and Trial Powers


All Metropolitan Magistrates exercise powers equivalent to Judicial Magistrates of the First Class — they may impose imprisonment not exceeding three years and fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000 (now revised under the BNSS). The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercises the powers and imposes the same sentences as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, except the sentence of death, imprisonment for life, or for a term exceeding seven years. The equivalences established by Section 3 make this functional parity complete.


One Significant Absence: No Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate on the Judicial Side


The one notable gap in the metropolitan magistracy's internal hierarchy is the absence of a Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate on the judicial side. The Code makes no provision for such a post, "presumably owing to the smallness of a metropolitan area" — the metropolitan area is a single, compact jurisdiction where the full concurrent jurisdiction of all Metropolitan Magistrates throughout the area makes a sub-divisional breakdown unnecessary. While there is no bar to a sub-divisional Executive Magistrate being appointed for a metropolitan area under Section 20(4), the judicial side has no corresponding arrangement.


The Special Metropolitan Magistrate: A Parallel to Special Judicial Magistrates


The Special Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 18 parallels the Special Judicial Magistrate under Section 13 in structure, powers, and constitutional basis. Both are drawn from persons holding or having held posts under the Government — a provision that has attracted constitutional challenge in both cases, resolved in favour of validity by the Supreme Court (for the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, in Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar). Both are appointed for terms not exceeding one year. Both can exercise cross-area powers — a Special Judicial Magistrate may be empowered to exercise the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate in a metropolitan area (Section 13(3)), and a Special Metropolitan Magistrate may exercise the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class outside the metropolitan area (Section 18(3)).


BNSS 2023: The Abolition of the Metropolitan Magistracy


Section 6 BNSS: Metropolitan Magistrates Removed from Classes of Criminal Courts


The most sweeping structural change made by the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the area of court constitution is the abolition of the Metropolitan Magistracy as a separate category. Section 6 BNSS (corresponding to Section 6 CrPC), which enumerates the classes of criminal courts, excludes the words "in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates" — removing Metropolitan Magistrates from the enumeration of courts.


The comparison table confirms this categorically: under the BNSS, "the positions of Judicial Magistrate of the third class, Metropolitan Magistrate, and Assistant Sessions Judges have been abolished." This is a landmark structural reform. The metropolitan magistracy, which had functioned in Presidency towns and other major cities for over a century, has been merged into the unified Judicial Magistracy under the BNSS.


Cascading Amendments Across the BNSS


The abolition of the metropolitan magistracy necessitated consequential amendments throughout the BNSS. The comparison table identifies these as affecting Sections 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 29, 113, 196, 214, 320, 321, 415, 422, and 436 of the BNSS. Specifically:

  • The proviso to Section 7 BNSS (Territorial divisions) related to metropolitan area has been excluded.

  • Section 9 BNSS (Courts of Judicial Magistrates) — the words "not being a Metropolitan area" have been excluded, making the provision applicable throughout the State including former metropolitan areas.

  • Section 10 BNSS (Chief Judicial Magistrate) — the metropolitan area exclusion has been removed, so a Chief Judicial Magistrate now has jurisdiction including over former metropolitan areas.

  • Section 12 BNSS (Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates) — the words "Metropolitan area" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" have been excluded.

  • Section 14 BNSS (Executive Magistrates) — the words "in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates" have been excluded.


The effect across all these sections is to eliminate the bifurcated regime — one set of provisions for metropolitan areas, another for the rest of the State — and create a unified Judicial Magistracy.


What Replaced the Metropolitan Magistracy?


Under the BNSS, the former metropolitan areas are administered by the ordinary Judicial Magistrate structure — Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, etc. — applicable throughout the State. The Section 3 CrPC equivalences (Metropolitan Magistrate = Judicial Magistrate of the First Class; Chief Metropolitan Magistrate = Chief Judicial Magistrate) are no longer required because the two have been merged into a single category.


Common Misconceptions


Misconception 1: A Metropolitan Magistrate has broader jurisdiction than a Judicial Magistrate. The metropolitan magistracy did not confer broader powers of trial or sentencing — both categories exercised First Class powers. The difference was geographical (entire metropolitan area vs. local limits of district sub-division) and structural (concurrent jurisdiction throughout vs. sub-jurisdictional allocation within the district).

Misconception 2: The metropolitan area concept was only for Presidency towns. Sections 8 and 2(k) of the CrPC extended the concept to any city with a population exceeding one million. The Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras along with Ahmedabad were deemed metropolitan areas at commencement, but any State Government could declare other qualifying cities as metropolitan areas by notification.

Misconception 3: The BNSS simply renamed the Metropolitan Magistrate. The BNSS did not rename the category — it abolished it. Metropolitan Magistrates no longer exist as a separate class of criminal courts under the BNSS. Former metropolitan areas now have ordinary Judicial Magistrates appointed and supervised under the unified Judicial Magistracy framework.


Conclusion


The metropolitan magistracy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was a carefully designed parallel to the ordinary Judicial Magistracy — parallel in appointment authority (High Court), parallel in constitutional basis (Articles 236-237), parallel in subordination structure (Sessions Judge at the apex), and parallel in judicial powers (First Class Magistrate equivalence).


Its distinctiveness lay in the geography of its operation: the metropolitan area defined under Sections 2(k) and 8 CrPC as a city with population exceeding one million, declared by the State Government, constituting a separate sessions division and district under Section 7, and giving its Metropolitan Magistrates concurrent jurisdiction throughout the area.


The historical rationale — that the sophisticated crime and heavy volume of large urban centres justified a dedicated judicial arrangement — was compelling enough to last over a century. The BNSS 2023 has swept it away, merging the metropolitan and non-metropolitan magistracy into a single unified structure. For cases registered and proceedings pending under the CrPC, however, the metropolitan magistracy remains operative, and the body of law on Sections 2(k), 8, 16-19, and 3 of the CrPC retains its practical relevance.



Frequently Asked Questions


Q: What is the definition of metropolitan area under Section 2(k) CrPC?


Section 2(k) CrPC defines metropolitan area as the area declared, or deemed to be declared, under Section 8, to be a metropolitan area. Section 8 provides that the State Government may, by notification, declare any area comprising a city or town with population exceeding one million to be a metropolitan area. The Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, and the city of Ahmedabad, were deemed to be metropolitan areas from the commencement of the Code.


Q: How does a Metropolitan Magistrate differ from a Judicial Magistrate under the CrPC?

Both are appointed by the High Court and both exercise First Class Magistrate powers. The key differences are territorial: a Metropolitan Magistrate's jurisdiction extends throughout the metropolitan area concurrently with all other Metropolitan Magistrates, while a Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to the local area within the district assigned to him. Structurally, the metropolitan magistracy lacks a Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate on the judicial side. Functionally, under Section 3 CrPC, every reference to a Magistrate of the first class in a metropolitan area is construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate.


Q: What is the constitutional basis for the Metropolitan Magistracy?

Both Judicial Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates are recruited by the High Court from the same sources under Articles 236 and 237 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional uniformity in recruitment means that all Judicial Magistrates — whether in districts or metropolitan areas — are equally under the control and supervision of the Sessions Judge and ultimately the High Court.


Q: What happens when a metropolitan area ceases to be one under Section 8(4) CrPC?

If the population of a metropolitan area falls below one million after its declaration, the State Government may, by notification, specify a date from which it ceases to be a metropolitan area. However, any inquiry, trial, or appeal pending immediately before such cessation shall continue to be dealt with under the Code as if the cessation had not taken place — protecting pending proceedings from disruption by the boundary change.


Q: What has the BNSS 2023 done to the Metropolitan Magistracy?

The BNSS 2023 has abolished the Metropolitan Magistracy as a separate category of criminal courts. Section 6 BNSS excludes Metropolitan Magistrates from the enumeration of classes of criminal courts. The positions of Metropolitan Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate of the third class, and Assistant Sessions Judges have all been abolished under the BNSS. Former metropolitan areas now function under the ordinary Judicial Magistracy structure applicable throughout the State, with cascading amendments effected in numerous sections of the BNSS to eliminate all references to Metropolitan Magistrates and metropolitan areas.




Comments

bottom of page