The Karnataka High Court has delivered a decisive clarification on the limits of judicial authority in international law enforcement cooperation, holding that no provision in the CrPC or BNSS empowers a magistrate to direct the issuance of an INTERPOL Red Corner Notice. This ruling reinforces the principle that transnational legal actions require statutory authorization, not judicial fiat.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mr. P.G. Joseph Tharakan, a 60-year-old resident of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, is an accused in Criminal Case No. 15645/2024 pending before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bengaluru. The case involves allegations of criminal breach of trust and fraud. On 09.09.2024, the Trial Court passed an order directing the issuance of a Red Corner Notice (RCN) against the petitioner through INTERPOL, and simultaneously directed the issuance of an open-dated warrant in English format.
Key Facts
- The petitioner resides at Sheikha Latifa Building, Flat No. 210, Baniyas Road, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.
- He is also listed with addresses in Goa, Serbia, and Bengaluru, as per the chargesheet.
- The Trial Court’s order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-A) directed the CBI to request INTERPOL to issue a Red Corner Notice against the petitioner.
- The order further directed the issuance of an open-dated warrant in English language (Annexure-L).
- The petitioner has not been arrested or produced before the court and is not present in India.
- No evidence was presented before the Trial Court establishing that the petitioner is evading arrest or has fled the country.
Procedural History
- 09.09.2024: III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, passed order directing issuance of Red Corner Notice and open-dated warrant.
- 21.03.2026: Writ Petition No. 2168 of 2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of BNSS.
- 23.03.2026: Final hearing conducted before Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner contends that the Trial Court acted without any statutory authority. He argues that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contains any provision empowering a magistrate to issue or direct the issuance of an INTERPOL Red Corner Notice. He further submits that such an order is arbitrary, violates his right to due process, and exposes him to international detention without legal basis.
Respondents’ Position: The State, CBI, and other respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the order was a legitimate tool to ensure the petitioner’s appearance before the court. They contended that the magistrate’s action was incidental to the court’s inherent power to ensure compliance with its orders.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 directing the Red Corner Notice and open-dated warrant.
- Declaration that subordinate courts in Karnataka have no power to issue or direct INTERPOL notices.
- Guidelines for future requests for INTERPOL notices.
- Compensation for wrongful issuance of the notice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, possesses any statutory authority to issue or direct the issuance of an INTERPOL Red Corner Notice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle of legality in criminal procedure, arguing that INTERPOL Red Corner Notices are international law enforcement tools governed by INTERPOL’s Constitution and internal rules, and require formal requests through designated National Central Bureaus (NCBs). He emphasized that neither CrPC nor BNSS contains any provision authorizing a magistrate to issue such notices. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai to underscore that judicial orders must be grounded in statutory mandate. He further argued that the issuance of an open-dated warrant in English format, without any territorial or procedural basis, was ultra vires and violated the petitioner’s rights under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the Trial Court’s order was a necessary measure to prevent the accused from evading trial, especially given his foreign residence. They argued that the magistrate’s action was within the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process. They submitted that the CBI, as the NCB for India, has the authority to transmit such requests, and the court’s direction was merely a procedural step.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual analysis of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, examining every provision relating to warrants, extradition, international cooperation, and the powers of magistrates. The Court noted that while Section 82 BNSS permits issuance of proclamation and warrant for absconding accused, and Section 83 BNSS allows for attachment of property, no provision authorizes a magistrate to direct INTERPOL to issue a Red Corner Notice.
"The power to request an INTERPOL Red Corner Notice is not a judicial power; it is an executive function vested in the National Central Bureau, which operates under the Ministry of Home Affairs and in accordance with INTERPOL’s rules. A Magistrate, however well-intentioned, cannot assume the role of an international law enforcement coordinator."
The Court further observed that INTERPOL’s Red Corner Notices are not arrest warrants but alerts requesting member states to locate and provisionally arrest individuals pending extradition. Their issuance requires a formal request from a designated authority, not a judicial order. The Court held that the Trial Court’s direction was an unauthorized expansion of judicial power, amounting to an exercise of executive function without statutory backing.
The Court also rejected the argument that Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) conferred such authority, noting that inherent powers cannot be used to create new legal mechanisms not contemplated by statute. The Court emphasized that due process requires legislative clarity before transnational legal consequences are imposed.
The Verdict
The petition was partly allowed. The Karnataka High Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 insofar as it directed the issuance of the Red Corner Notice and the open-dated warrant against the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court in C.C. No. 15645/2024 on 27.04.2026. The CBI (Respondent No. 2) was directed to inform INTERPOL (Respondent No. 4) of this order to cancel the Red Corner Notice. The Ministry of Personnel (Respondent No. 3) and the Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs (Respondent No. 5), were directed to inform Dubai Police and UAE authorities to ensure compliance. Hand delivery of the order was permitted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Cannot Substitute Statutory Authority
- Practitioners must now challenge any magistrate’s order directing INTERPOL notices as ultra vires, citing this judgment as binding precedent.
- No court in India can issue or direct INTERPOL notices unless expressly empowered by statute.
- Requests for Red Corner Notices must originate from the NCB (CBI) based on formal extradition or mutual legal assistance requests, not judicial directives.
Appearance Before Court Remains Mandatory
- While INTERPOL notices are invalid without statutory basis, the court’s direction for the accused to appear on a specific date (27.04.2026) reinforces that absence does not absolve legal responsibility.
- Lawyers representing accused persons abroad must now advise clients to comply with court-mandated appearance dates to avoid fresh warrants or contempt proceedings.
Procedural Safeguards for International Accused
- This judgment establishes that foreign residents cannot be subjected to international alerts without legislative sanction.
- Future requests for INTERPOL notices must be accompanied by a formal application under the Extradition Act or MLAT, not a mere court order.
- The ruling may influence pending cases where magistrates have issued similar notices in financial fraud, money laundering, or cybercrime cases.
