NEW DELHI: Parliament has “absolute prerogative” to make a law and is not bound by the undertaking the Center may have given before the court, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
The observations came from a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi who was hearing arguments questioning the validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act.
Section 152 of the National Services Act deals with acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
An advocate for the petitioners said that Section 152 reintroduces Section 124A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
In May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed the colonial-era sedition law until an “appropriate” government forum reconsidered it and directed the Center and states not to register any new FIR calling for the offence.
In 2022, the Center has pledged before the Supreme Court to review the sedition law, the lawyer said on Friday.
The government cannot reintroduce this clause in the BNS after submitting an undertaking before the court, the lawyer said.
“The Indian Union may have given an undertaking before the court, but Parliament is not bound by it,” the bench said, adding that “Parliament has absolute prerogative to make a law.”
The lawyer then referred to Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act and said that it violates the Lalita Kumari judgment of the Supreme Court which stipulates registration of an FIR if the information reveals the commission of a cognizable crime.
The lawyer said Section 173 allows the police to conduct a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case to proceed with a matter.
The bench observed that the judgment in Lalita Kumari was often misused, saying: “Sometimes judgments are passed in ivory towers.”
The Lalita Kumari judgment also states that a preliminary investigation may be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offense has been detected or not, the bench said.
She posted the matter for hearing after Holly’s leave.
Last year, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Center on a PIL against the validity of Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
