The Supreme Court's 2026 half-yearly digest clarifies key rulings on BNSS Section 2(1)(k), which defines 'Inquiry', and Section 531(2)(a), the savings clause for pending CrPC proceedings. Courts distinguished purely ministerial acts from judicial inquiry. The digest consolidates how transitional provisions operate when BNSS replaced CrPC, determining which ongoing proceedings continue under old law and which migrate to BNSS — a critical distinction for procedural validity of criminal cases.

When the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, the transition raised a fundamental question: what happens to proceedings already underway? Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS is the savings clause — it preserves pending CrPC proceedings, allowing them to continue as if CrPC were not repealed. However, this protection is not blanket. The Supreme Court has clarified that only proceedings involving a genuine 'Inquiry' as defined under Section 2(1)(k) — meaning a judicial inquiry conducted by a Magistrate or Court — qualify for this savings protection. Purely ministerial or administrative acts (like filing paperwork or issuing summons without judicial application of mind) do not constitute 'Inquiry' and therefore do not attract the savings clause. This distinction matters enormously for CLAT PG because the examiner can present a hypothetical mid-proceeding scenario and ask whether BNSS or CrPC applies. The principle also connects to Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, reinforcing why procedural savings clauses are constitutionally necessary. Aspirants must know that 'investigation' (by police) and 'inquiry' (by Magistrate) are distinct — a confusion the examiner frequently exploits in distractors.