The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament is not bound by any undertaking given by the Centre before the Court while enacting a law. The remark came during the hearing on challenges to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the old sedition provision.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday made it clear that Parliament has full authority to make laws and is not legally bound by any undertaking that may have been given by the Central government before the Court in earlier proceedings.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 152 deals with acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Several petitioners have argued that this new provision is similar to the old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which had been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court in 2022.
During the hearing, one of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners submitted that Section 152 of the BNS effectively brings back the colonial-era sedition offence.
He pointed out that in May 2022, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of Section 124A IPC and directed the Centre and the States not to register fresh FIRs under the sedition provision until the law was reconsidered by the government at an appropriate forum.
The counsel further argued that in 2022, the Central government had given an undertaking before the top court stating that it would review the sedition law. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the government could not reintroduce a similar provision in the new criminal code after giving such an assurance to the Court.
Responding to this submission, the Bench observed,
“The Union of India may have given an undertaking before the court but Parliament is not bound by it,”
and further added,
“Parliament has the absolute prerogative to enact a law”.
The Court thus indicated that while the executive may make statements before the judiciary, the legislative power of Parliament remains independent and cannot be restricted by such undertakings.
The petitioners also challenged Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The counsel argued that this provision goes against the landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court had made it mandatory for the police to register an FIR if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
According to the lawyer, Section 173 of the BNSS allows the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry to check whether there is a prima facie case before proceeding, which, he claimed, dilutes the ratio laid down in Lalita Kumari.
The Bench, however, remarked that the Lalita Kumari judgment has often been misunderstood and misapplied. In this context, the Court observed,
“Sometimes judgments are delivered sitting in ivory towers.”
The judges further clarified that even in Lalita Kumari, the Court had allowed a limited preliminary inquiry in certain categories of cases to determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.
After hearing the initial arguments, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing after the Holi vacations. The constitutional challenge to Section 152 of the BNS continues to remain pending, and the Court is expected to examine in detail whether the new provision violates fundamental rights or merely reframes the offence of sedition under a different name.
It may be noted that last year, the Supreme Court had already issued notice to the Centre in a separate Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of Section 152 of the BNS. The outcome of these proceedings will have significant implications for free speech, criminal law reform, and the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary in India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Kerala Story 2
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
