Nakkheeran Gopal’s PIL (WP 6087/2026) against the proviso to BNSS Section 223 came up before the First Bench; notice ordered. He’s also filed a criminal defamation complaint against Jaggi Vasudev and 14 others. He argues the proviso—requiring an accused’s opportunity before cognizance—is redundant, delays justice, and is vague compared to old CrPC Sec 200.

[13/03, 13:40] sekarreporter1: [13/03, 13:38] Pt Perumal: Today the PIL filed by Nakkheeran Gopal.
WP. No 6087/ 2026.
challenging the Proviso to
Section 223 of BNSS came up for admission before the Hon’ble Fist Bench.
The Bench ordered notice.
Mr.Nakkheeran Gopal has already filled a Criminal Defamation private complaint against Jaggi Vasudev and 14 others before II
Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences of criminal conspiracy and defamation.
Pending that, he has filled this PIL challenging the said Proviso of Section 223, wherein, it is mandated that the accused be given opportunity before taking cognizance.
This part is newly introduced.
Old Cr.P.C. section 200 did not have the said Proviso.
Our contention is.
1) It is redundant, undue prolonger and repugnant to
speedy trial and timely justice.
2) The proviso is confusing and vague. It doesn’t specify whether
under summons or notice. the accused has to appear .
[13/03, 13:39] Pt Perumal: Today item number 36 before First Bench
[13/03, 13:39] Pt Perumal: Today the PIL filed by Nakkheeran Gopal.
WP. No 6087/ 2026.
challenging the Proviso to
Section 223 of BNSS came up for admission before the Hon’ble Fist Bench.
The Bench ordered notice.
Mr.Nakkheeran Gopal has already filled a Criminal Defamation private complaint against Jaggi Vasudev and 14 others before II
Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences of criminal conspiracy and defamation.
Pending that, he has filled this PIL challenging the said Proviso of Section 223, wherein, it is mandated that the accused be given opportunity before taking cognizance.
This part is newly introduced.
Old Cr.P.C. section 200 did not have the said Proviso.
Our contention is.
1) It is redundant, undue prolonger and repugnant to
speedy trial and timely justice.
2) The proviso is confusing and vague. It doesn’t specify whether
under summons or notice. the accused has to appear .
[13/03, 13:40] sekarreporter1: Nakkheeran Gopal’s PIL (WP 6087/2026) against the proviso to BNSS Section 223 came up before the First Bench; notice ordered. He’s also filed a criminal defamation complaint against Jaggi Vasudev and 14 others. He argues the proviso—requiring an accused’s opportunity before cognizance—is redundant, delays justice, and is vague compared to old CrPC Sec 200.
[13/03, 13:40] sekarreporter1: நக்கீரன் கோபால் தாக்கல் செய்த PIL (WP 6087/2026)—BNSS பிரிவு 223-ன் பிரொவிசோவை எதிர்த்து—முதல் பெஞ்ச் முன் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது, நோட்டீஸ் உத்தரவு. ஜக்கி வாசுதேவ் மற்றும் 14 பேர் மீது அவர் தனி புகார் கொடுத்துள்ளார். பிரொவிசோ தேவையற்றது, தாமதத்தை உண்டாக்கும், தெளிவற்றது என்கிறார்.