New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday said that the government’s decision to review the offence of sedition under the old Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot prevent Parliament from introducing it in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as the legislature functions independent of the executive.
The observation came while the court was hearing a batch of public interest litigations (PIL) challenging various provisions of BNS, including section 152 that criminalises a host of actions that endanger sovereignty, integrity and unity of the country.
The petitioners referred to an undertaking given by Centre in 2022 before the top court that section 124A of the IPC relating to the offence of sedition would be reviewed. Based on this undertaking, the court had in May 2022 ordered all pending trials, appeals and proceedings before any court under section 124A to be kept in abeyance.
The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Parliament is not bound by the government’s undertaking. These are executive decisions. The legislature may still want to enact a law. Parliament is absolutely entitled to pass any law.”
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for one of the petitioners said, “The Centre said that we will withdraw the offence of sedition. And yet it is present in the form of section 152 BNS.”
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for one of the petitioners said, “The Centre said that we will withdraw the offence of sedition. And yet it is present in the form of section 152 BNS.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench said that Parliament’s power to enact a law is independent of the executive and it is left to the judiciary to review whether the law falls foul of the constitutional principles. “It is only when courts subject a law to judicial review, we examine whether a provision satisfies the constitutional requirements.”
The court was hearing a batch of petitions by Azad Singh Kataria, Mannargudi Bar Association, and several others challenging the provisions of BNS.
The bench said, “For now, the statutes are working well. It is only with passage of time, we come to know which are the provisions that are causing impediments and if so, whether they can be resolved by courts or need legislative intervention.”
Guruswamy further referred to section 173 of BNS which empowers the police to verify the veracity of a complaint by holding a preliminary enquiry before registering a first information report (FIR). She said that this provision goes against the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lalita Kumari case (2014) which held that if a complaint discloses cognisable offence, police must register FIR without conducting any preliminary enquiry.
The court took exception to the Lalita Kumari judgment observing that it failed to take note of ground realities and societal values. “That judgment has been abused the most. Without knowing our societal values, ground realities, we keep granting perceived rights and destroy the fabric of this country,” the bench said.
As other lawyers appearing in the matter sought time, the court adjourned the hearing to a date next month.