1. Introduction: What is a Local Inquiry under the BNSS?

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is India’s new criminal procedure code that aims to modernize and streamline the country’s criminal justice process. It replaces the older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and introduces reforms that make investigations, inquiries, and preventive actions more efficient and transparent.

Among its many provisions, Section 167 of the BNSS plays a key role in preventive proceedings handled by Magistrates. These proceedings often deal with situations where there is a potential threat to public peace, safety, or order. For example, when there are disputes about land, boundaries, or public pathways, or when the authorities need accurate facts to decide if an obstruction, nuisance, or danger exists, the Magistrate may not have firsthand knowledge of the local situation.

In such cases, the law allows for a “local inquiry”—a formal process to collect facts and evidence from the place where the issue has arisen. Section 167 of the BNSS provides the legal framework for this inquiry, describing who can conduct it, how it should be done, what happens to the report, and who bears the related costs.

This provision supports other related sections of the BNSS, such as Section 164 (inquiry into the truth of information), Section 165 (order to prevent obstruction or nuisance), and Section 166 (order to prevent imminent public danger). Together, these provisions help Magistrates act effectively and justly to maintain public order.

2. The Power to Depute: Who Conducts the Local Inquiry? (Section 167(1))

Section 167(1) of the BNSS gives the District Magistrate (DM) or the Sub-divisional Magistrate (SDM) the authority to order and supervise a local inquiry. This power is essential because such officers often handle preventive cases across a wide area and may not be able to personally visit every location or situation that requires attention.

The law allows them to “depute any Magistrate subordinate to him” to conduct the inquiry on their behalf. This means the DM or SDM can assign the task to another Magistrate who is under their administrative control. Delegation ensures that the inquiry is carried out promptly and efficiently without overburdening senior officers.

However, the deputed Magistrate does not act independently or without direction. Section 167(1) requires that the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate provide written instructions outlining what facts need to be investigated and what questions should be addressed. These written directions create accountability and ensure that the inquiry remains focused and relevant to the issue at hand.

The section also gives the Magistrate the power to determine who will bear the expenses of conducting the local inquiry. The DM or SDM can specify whether the costs are to be paid entirely by one party, shared between the parties, or covered by the government. These “expenses of the inquiry” may include travel costs, inspection charges, or other logistical expenses necessary to complete the inquiry.

Thus, subsection (1) ensures three main things: proper delegation of authority, clear procedural guidance, and financial accountability for conducting a local inquiry.

3. The Legal Weight: Is the Inquiry Report Admissible as Evidence? (Section 167(2))

Once the deputed Magistrate completes the local inquiry, a report is prepared and submitted to the Magistrate who ordered the inquiry. Section 167(2) of the BNSS addresses the legal value of this report. It explicitly states that the report “may be read as evidence in the case.”

This is a crucial feature of the provision because it elevates the report from being a mere administrative note to a legally admissible document. The inquiry report thus becomes a formal part of the record that can be used by the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate while deciding the case.

In practical terms, this means that the findings, observations, and conclusions drawn during the local inquiry can directly influence the final decision. For example, if the inquiry reveals that a public pathway has been unlawfully obstructed, the Magistrate can rely on that report to issue an order under Section 165 of the BNSS to remove the obstruction.

At the same time, the wording of the section—using “may” instead of “shall”—shows that the Magistrate retains discretion. The report can be read as evidence, but it is not binding. The Magistrate can choose to accept or reject the report based on the credibility of the findings and the other evidence available in the case.

This balance ensures that the process is both efficient and fair. It prevents the need to repeat the entire investigation while also protecting the parties from being unfairly affected by an incomplete or biased report.

4. Allocating the Costs: Who Pays for the Legal Proceedings? (Section 167(3))

Section 167(3) deals with another important aspect of justice—the costs of the proceedings. This subsection is distinct from subsection (1), which talks about the expenses of conducting the inquiry itself. Subsection (3) focuses on the legal costs incurred by the parties involved in the case.

It empowers the Magistrate who ultimately decides the case to determine “by whom such costs shall be paid.” The wording provides flexibility: the Magistrate can order one party to pay the entire amount, divide it between both parties, or decide any proportion that seems fair in the circumstances.

These costs can include:

• Expenses of witnesses: such as travel, accommodation, and allowances.

• Advocates’ fees: the reasonable legal fees paid by the parties to their lawyers.

By specifically mentioning advocates’ fees, Section 167(3) recognizes the real financial burden that parties bear during legal proceedings. It also ensures that if one party is found to have caused unnecessary litigation or made false claims, they can be directed to pay the costs of the other side.

This power to allocate costs serves two main purposes. First, it discourages frivolous or malicious complaints that waste judicial time and resources. Second, it compensates the successful party for the expenses they have legitimately incurred in defending their position.

The discretion given to the Magistrate allows for flexibility, ensuring that costs are awarded in a manner that promotes fairness and justice rather than rigidly applying the rule in all cases.

Also read: BNSS Section 164

5. Conclusion: The Purpose of BNSS Section 167

Section 167 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is more than just a procedural clause—it is a practical tool that strengthens the foundation of preventive justice in India. It ensures that decisions affecting public order are not made in isolation but are supported by reliable, on-ground facts gathered through a formal local inquiry.

This section serves three vital purposes:

1. Fact-Finding:
   It empowers the Magistrate to obtain accurate and objective information through a deputed subordinate. This ensures that the decision-making process is informed by verified local facts rather than mere allegations or assumptions.

2. Efficiency and Legal Value:
   By making the inquiry report admissible as evidence, Section 167 avoids unnecessary duplication of work and speeds up the final decision. It bridges the gap between fact-gathering and judicial determination.

3. Justice and Fair Cost Distribution:
   The authority to award costs, including reasonable advocates’ fees, ensures that justice does not become an undue financial burden. It also deters misuse of the legal process by making parties accountable for unnecessary or vexatious litigation.

In a broader sense, BNSS Section 167 reflects the underlying philosophy of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita—to make India’s criminal justice system more responsive, transparent, and equitable. By clearly defining who can conduct local inquiries, how the findings can be used, and how the costs should be distributed, it provides a fair and structured approach to preventive proceedings.

Ultimately, Section 167 reinforces the idea that justice must be based on verified facts and that the process of finding those facts should be both efficient and fair. It ensures that Magistrates’ decisions are grounded in local realities and that the financial responsibilities arising from such proceedings are allocated justly.

Through this balance of authority, evidence, and fairness, BNSS Section 167 stands as a key provision that upholds both the procedural integrity and the practical effectiveness of India’s preventive justice system.