The Delhi High Court on Wednesday firmly dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that called for the removal of key offences such as waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal clarified that such actions fall strictly within the legislative powers of the Parliament, and not the Judiciary.
“Abolition is only permissible by enacting the amendment act. It’s an act of the Parliament. We cannot direct the Parliament to do so, it will amount to legislating. It is not under our realm,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Eviction of Lawyers for Running 'Vivah Kendra' Inside Court Chamber
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Upendra Nath Dalai, who challenged Section 147 (waging war), Section 158 (harbouring offenders), Section 189 (unlawful assembly), and Section 197 (promoting enmity), falling under Chapter VII and XI of the BNS. The petitioner sought the complete abolition of these provisions, terming them anti-democratic and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Dalai’s petition alleged that these provisions resemble colonial laws and are being misused to silence dissent, especially targeting individuals who organize public meetings or protest against the government.
“The government wants no one to oppose it, and whoever does, is booked under unlawful assembly,” the plea stated.
He further argued that the Central Government was trying to suppress Indian citizens, comparing the current scenario to British colonial rule, where laws were designed to crush voices of resistance.
“There is no king here. All citizens are kings. Here, according to the Constitution, to provide order and justice to the citizens, the government is formed every five years through elections,” Dalai submitted.
The plea emphasized that protesting or criticizing the government cannot be equated with harming the country, drawing a distinction between treason and sedition, which Dalai claimed has merely been renamed in the new BNS.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Declares SBI's Termination of Messenger Arbitrary, Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation
However, the Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as such legislative changes must come through Parliamentary amendment, not judicial direction.
“The prayers made in this PIL cannot be granted by the Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction,” the Bench concluded.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing that constitutional courts cannot interfere in legislative matters and must respect the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Case Title: UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA