1. Introduction: The Ball is in Your Court

Imagine this scenario: a Magistrate, acting under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), issues a conditional order under Section 152 to address a public nuisance. Perhaps a dangerously unstable building threatens a public street, or a business emits hazardous fumes that endanger nearby residents. The order is clear, precise, and lawfully delivered to the responsible person under Section 153. At this stage, the state has taken its step to safeguard public interest. But what happens next?

This is where Section 154 of the BNSS comes into play. It marks the critical decision point for the recipient of the conditional order. The law leaves no room for ambiguity or inaction. It lays down only two distinct and mutually exclusive options for the individual upon receiving the Magistrate’s directive: obey the order or contest it before the Magistrate.

This provision ensures both the swift resolution of public nuisances and the protection of individual rights. The person affected cannot remain idle; the law demands an active response. Either the recipient must carry out the Magistrate’s directive as stated, or they must appear and “show cause” why the order should not become absolute.

This article explores these two possible courses under Section 154 of the BNSS, detailing the process, implications, and the modern addition of virtual appearances that enhance accessibility and fairness in the system.

2. Path A: Compliance and Resolution (Section 154(a))

The Straightforward Choice: Performing the Directed Act

The first option under Section 154 is simple in concept and clear in expectation. If the person does not wish to contest the order, they must perform the act required by the Magistrate. This represents full compliance with the conditional order and serves the immediate objective of protecting the public from harm or inconvenience.

The Act Itself:
The person must execute the specific task mentioned in the order. The nature of this act depends on the nuisance identified under Section 152. For example, the order may instruct a property owner to remove an illegal obstruction from a public pathway, a shopkeeper to close or modify a polluting operation, or a livestock owner to confine an animal that endangers public safety. The wording of the order will be explicit, leaving no doubt about what must be done.

The Timeline:
The BNSS specifies that the required action must be performed “within the time specified in the order.” This timeline is binding and non-negotiable. The deadline is essential because the purpose of Section 152 and 154 is to promptly remove threats to public health, safety, or convenience. A delayed response would defeat the very purpose of the law. Therefore, the person receiving the order must act without hesitation or delay.

The Method:
Equally important is the manner in which the act must be carried out. The law requires compliance “in the manner specified” by the Magistrate. This means that even if the person completes the task, it must be done according to the method, materials, or procedural steps stated in the order. For example, if the Magistrate directs that a structure be demolished safely under municipal supervision, independent demolition without authorization would not satisfy the legal requirement.

Outcome:
Once the act is performed as directed, the matter is considered fully resolved. The individual’s compliance ends the proceeding, and no further legal consequence follows. The conditional order serves its purpose, the nuisance is abated, and public interest is restored. This path offers finality and efficiency—it closes the matter without further litigation.

3. Path B: Contesting the Order (Section 154(b))

The Right to Challenge: Appearing to Show Cause

The second path under Section 154 is designed for those who believe that the Magistrate’s conditional order is unfounded, incorrect, or misdirected. The law recognizes that even well-intentioned administrative action can sometimes affect the wrong person or be based on incomplete information. Hence, Section 154(b) provides a clear and fair mechanism to contest the order through a formal process known as “showing cause.”

Appearance:
The first requirement is personal appearance before the Magistrate. The order specifies a date, time, and place for this appearance. The person must attend as directed—failure to do so may result in the order being made absolute without further hearing. This obligation to appear is the first step in asserting one’s defense.

“Show Cause”:
At the heart of this provision lies the concept of “showing cause.” The individual must explain or prove why the conditional order should not be made permanent. This involves presenting facts, evidence, and legal arguments that demonstrate either the absence of a nuisance, the unreasonableness of the order, or the individual’s lack of responsibility for the alleged condition.

During the hearing, the Magistrate acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, weighing both the public interest and the individual’s rights. The hearing ensures that no order is made absolute without giving the affected party a fair opportunity to present their case.

Examples of Showing Cause:

1. Structural Safety Defense: A property owner may present an engineer’s report proving that the building declared “dangerous” is, in fact, structurally sound and poses no threat to the public.

2. Business Operations Defense: A factory owner accused of running a hazardous trade may show compliance with environmental regulations and that emissions are within permissible limits.

3. Identity or Responsibility Defense: A person may establish that they are not the owner or controller of the property or nuisance in question, and therefore not the correct recipient of the order.

These examples highlight that “showing cause” is not merely about disagreement—it requires substantive proof and reasoning that can withstand scrutiny before the Magistrate.

Outcome:
If the Magistrate is satisfied with the explanation, the conditional order will not be made absolute, and the individual is relieved from compliance. However, if the Magistrate finds the cause insufficient, the order becomes final, and the person must then perform the act as directed.

This process strikes a balance between the state’s authority to safeguard the public and the citizen’s right to due process. It ensures that no one is compelled to act against an unjust or mistaken order without being heard.

4. A Modern Convenience: The Virtual Option

Access to Justice in the Digital Age

One of the most progressive features of Section 154 is its acknowledgment of modern technology and evolving judicial practices. The law now expressly allows that “such appearance or hearing may be permitted through audio-video conferencing.” This single clause transforms access to justice in significant ways.

Accessibility:
By allowing appearances through digital means, the law reduces the barriers that often prevent timely participation. Individuals no longer need to travel long distances, take leave from work, or incur expenses to appear before a Magistrate. This is particularly valuable in cases involving people living in remote or rural areas, or those with mobility challenges.

Efficiency:
From the court’s perspective, virtual appearances enhance administrative efficiency. Magistrates can conduct hearings more swiftly, schedule multiple cases without geographical limitations, and reduce the strain on physical court infrastructure. This leads to faster resolutions, benefiting both the state and the citizen.

Flexibility:
The inclusion of virtual hearings also reflects a broader transformation in India’s justice system—one that recognizes technology as an enabler of fairness, not a barrier. The provision allows flexibility in how justice is delivered while maintaining the same standards of accountability and procedural rigor.

This modernization aligns with the larger objectives of the BNSS: to simplify, expedite, and humanize the criminal and procedural laws in India. Section 154’s digital option underscores the state’s commitment to ensuring that procedural rights are not lost in logistical difficulties.

Also read: BNSS Section 134

5. Conclusion: A Clear and Fair Choice

Section 154 of the BNSS stands as a model of procedural clarity and fairness. It offers the recipient of a conditional order two, and only two, lawful paths: comply fully with the directive or appear before the Magistrate to show cause against it. There is no third option, no room for indecision. This structure ensures that matters involving public safety and nuisance are resolved without delay while preserving the fundamental right to be heard.

For those who choose compliance, the path is straightforward—perform the required act within the prescribed time and manner, and the matter ends there. For those who choose to contest, the law provides a fair and transparent process to present evidence and arguments before an impartial authority.

The inclusion of audio-video conferencing marks a forward-looking step, ensuring that justice remains accessible, efficient, and attuned to the realities of a digital society. It demonstrates how modern legal frameworks can integrate technology without compromising fairness.

Ultimately, Section 154 embodies the principle that the rule of law is not merely about obedience—it is about choice within accountability. The state ensures that nuisances are addressed swiftly, but it also guarantees every individual the right to contest, to explain, and to be heard. By clearly defining these two paths—obey or make your case—the BNSS upholds both public order and personal liberty, reaffirming that justice must always be both effective and fair.