Question

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has introduced a specific timeframe for the delivery of a judgment after the conclusion of arguments. What is that timeframe?

• A. Within 90 days, provided the reasons for delay are recorded
• B. Within 30 days (extendable to 45 days)
• C. Within 60 days from the date of reserving the order
• D. Within a strict period of 15 days

Hint:

For BNSS examination questions, remember the sequence: 30 days (ordinary period) $\rightarrow$ extension permissible $\rightarrow$ maximum outer limit of 90 days with recorded reasons.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This provision actually has two numbers built into it, an ordinary period and an extended outer limit conditioned on recorded reasons, so the safest way to answer is to check which option correctly reflects the outer limit together with its condition, rather than the ordinary period alone.

1. 30 days extendable to 45 days: this option only captures a partial version of the scheme and stops short of the true outer limit the provision allows in harder cases.
2. 60 days from reserving the order: this figure does not correspond to either the ordinary period or the outer limit under this scheme and appears to be an unrelated timeline.
3. A strict 15 days: this is far shorter than what the provision contemplates and is not supported by the statutory scheme at all.
4. 90 days, provided reasons for delay are recorded: this matches the real outer limit built into the scheme, and crucially also matches the condition attached to reaching that limit, namely that the delay be justified through recorded reasons.

Since only the ninety-day option correctly pairs the true outer limit with the requirement of recorded reasons, it is the one that accurately states the BNSS timeline for delivering judgment.

Answer 2

Options describing thirty days and ninety days are not really rival, unconnected figures, they describe two different points on the same timeline, the ordinary target and the outer limit for harder cases, so comparing them directly is the most efficient way to reach the answer.

1. The thirty-day figure: this is the period within which judgment should ordinarily be delivered once arguments are complete, reflecting the general aim of speedy criminal justice.
2. The ninety-day figure with recorded reasons: this is not a separate, competing rule but the extended outer limit the same scheme allows when a case genuinely needs more time, conditioned on the court writing down why the delay was necessary. Because the option based on thirty days extendable only to forty-five days stops short of this true outer limit, it does not capture the full rule, whereas the ninety-day option does.
3. The sixty-day and fifteen-day figures: neither of these appears anywhere on the actual timeline the scheme sets out, whether at the ordinary stage or the extended stage, so both can be set aside as not describing this provision at all.

Once the ordinary period and the true outer limit are recognised as two ends of the same rule, the option that states the ninety-day outer limit together with the requirement of recorded reasons is the one that fully and accurately reflects the provision.

Therefore, the correct answer is within 90 days, provided the reasons for delay are recorded.