The Delhi High Court rejected a PIL challenging the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections on waging war against India. The Bench cautioned petitioner Upendra Nath Dalai for repeatedly filing similar petitions and hinted at imposing costs.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that criminalise the offence of waging war against the Government of India.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who also said that they would consider imposing costs on the petitioner, Upendra Nath Dalai, for repeatedly filing similar petitions before the court.
The Bench expressed strong displeasure at the petitioner’s conduct, observing that he had been filing the same kind of petitions again and again, even after earlier ones had been rejected.
The Court reminded Dalai that he had already been given several chances and assistance to present his case properly.
The judges said that in previous cases, the petitioner was provided with a counsel who could speak his native language. In another case, a senior advocate was also asked to help him so that he could understand the legal issues better.
The Court, however, criticised him for referring to the Pulwama terror attack in his petition, calling it inappropriate and irrelevant. The Bench warned him against misusing the process of law.
The Court said,
“We are cautioning you! The kind of petition you have filed. First, you file a writ petition, then you seek a review and then another… Merely changing the words of a prayer in a petition will not allow you to file a writ petition,”
The judges further told the petitioner that the High Court was not the right place to have a general public discussion on such topics. They reminded him that he must confine himself to legal arguments while appearing before a court.
The Bench added.
“This is not the platform to indulge in public discourse on a subject or topic. You are in a court of law, and you must understand that. You are arguing a legal issue. Your venue is somewhere else. We are requesting you. We have even provided you help of an advocate and a Senior Advocate – someone with the capability to speak to you in Odia,”
Dalai had approached the High Court challenging Sections 147 to 158 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deal with offences and punishments related to waging war against India, and include provisions penalising those who aid, rescue, or shelter a state prisoner or prisoner of war escaping lawful custody.
The petitioner claimed that these sections violated the fundamental rights of citizens and that the High Court had the power to strike them down.
However, the Bench found his reasoning legally unsound and reminded him that there are specific legal grounds to challenge violations of fundamental rights.
The Court remarked,
“Ye grounds nahi hote jo aapne diye hain. Hum aapko kayi baar sachet kar chuke hain. Aapke lekh likhne ke liye ye sab theek hai par petition me ye sab nahi hota (These are not the grounds to challenge. We have cautioned you many times. All these grounds are alright if you want to write an opinion piece, but not in a petition),”
Appearing for the Central Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma told the Court that the petitioner was a repeat offender and urged the Bench to impose heavy costs on him for wasting the court’s time.
Hearing this, Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked ASG Sharma how such incidents of repeated and frivolous petitions could be prevented in the future.
In response, ASG Sharma strongly suggested that imposing costs would act as a deterrent, saying that people should not treat the court as a platform for making random or baseless arguments.
Sharma added,
“It [the Court] should not be an open gate for everyone to say anything they want. It is very serious. Your lordships will have to come down hard on this man. Appearances are deceptive, and this man is deceptive,”
The Bench agreed that it would consider imposing costs on the petitioner and finally dismissed the PIL.
Through this decision, the Delhi High Court made it clear that repeated and baseless petitions cannot be used to question laws without valid legal grounds, and that misuse of judicial forums will invite strict action.
Case Title:
Upendra Nath Dalai v Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs
