New Delhi
The government’s decision to review the offense of sedition under the ancient Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot stop Parliament from introducing it into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as the legislature acts independently from the executive, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
The observation came as the court was hearing a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PIL) challenging various provisions of the BNS, including Section 152 which criminalizes a range of actions that endanger the country’s sovereignty, integrity and unity.
The petitioners referred to the undertaking given by the Center in 2022 before the Supreme Court that Section 124A of the IPC relating to the crime of sedition would be reviewed. Based on this undertaking, the court in May 2022 ordered the suspension of all trials, appeals and proceedings before any court under Section 124A.
“Parliament is not bound by the government’s undertakings. These are executive decisions. The legislature may still want to make a law. Parliament is fully entitled to make any law,” a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi said.
“The Center said we will withdraw the offense of sedition. However, it exists in the form of Section 152 BNS,” said senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for one of the petitioners.
The authority said that Parliament’s authority to enact a law is independent of the executive authority, and it is left to the judiciary to review whether the law conflicts with constitutional principles. “Only when the courts are legally subject to judicial review do we examine whether the text meets the constitutional requirements.”
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Azad Singh Kataria, Mannargudi Bar Association, and several others challenging the BNS rulings.
“For now, the laws are working well,” the council said. “Only with time will we know what provisions are causing barriers and, if so, whether they can be resolved by the courts or need legislative intervention.”
Guruswamy also referred to Section 173 of the Police Services Act which enables the police to verify the veracity of a complaint by conducting a preliminary investigation before registering a First Information Report (FIR). She said that this ruling goes against the Supreme Court decision in Lalita Kumari (2014) which stated that if the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR without conducting any preliminary investigation.
The court objected to the ruling in Lalita Kumari, stating that it failed to take into account ground realities and societal values. “This provision has been misused more than others. Without knowing our societal values and ground realities, we continue to grant perceived rights and destroy the fabric of this country,” the bench said.
While other lawyers who attended the case requested time, the court decided to postpone the hearing to next month.
