Repetitive PILs Challenging Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Provisions Dismissed by Delhi High Court - 2025-11-12

The Price of Persistence: Delhi High Court Dismisses Repeated Challenge to BNS

The Delhi High Court has once again signaled that its doors are not open to repetitive and frivolous litigation. In a recent judgment, the bench led by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Upendra Nath Dalai, who sought to label specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, as unconstitutional.

The petition, which targeted sections relating to offences against the State and public tranquility, was discarded by the court as a vexatious attempt to rekindle a challenge that had already been put to rest by an earlier bench.

A History of Repetitive Filings

The dispute originated from the petitioner's ongoing dissatisfaction with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita . Previously, the petitioner had filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 9364/2025) seeking the "abolition" of these exact sections. That petition was dismissed on July 9, 2025, on the ground that the judiciary cannot issue directions to Parliament to legislate or amend an Act. Subsequent attempts—including a review petition—were also met with dismissal, with the court clarifying that the petitioner could not use the review process to circumvent earlier orders.

In the current proceedings, the petitioner employed a semantic shift, asking the court to "declare" the sections invalid rather than "abolish" them. The court remained unimpressed, noting that this minor adjustment did nothing to change the substance of the challenge.

The Court’s Reasoning: Judicial Restraint and Abuse of Process

The High Court emphasized that it has repeatedly cautioned the petitioner about filing such petitions. Demonstrating the judiciary's patience, the court noted that it had previously offered the petitioner legal assistance and access to counsel fluent in his native language to ensure he understood the legal proceedings. However, the court found the present filing to be "bordering on offensive to contumacious" and marked by "wild and imaginative" assertions.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the judiciary cannot encroach upon the legislative domain by directing the Parliament to change laws. The petition was deemed an abuse of the court’s time, warranting a strict warning against future misconduct.

Key Observations

The judgment captures the court’s firm stance on maintaining judicial decorum and preventing the misuse of the PIL jurisdiction:

• "Prayer made in this Public Interest Petition cannot be granted by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
• "Merely by replacing the word ‘abolish’ with the word ‘declare’ as unconstitutional, the import and purport of the challenge would not change. Filing multiple PILs on identical challenges cannot be appreciated by this Court."
• "Many of such statements border on offensive to contumacious presentation of wild and imaginative state of affairs."
• "In that view of the matter, rather than imposing costs, exemplary or otherwise, we find it more appropriate to give a stern warning to the petitioner to be more careful in the future."

The Final Verdict: A Warning Issued

Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed the matter along with all pending applications. To ensure accountability, the court directed the Registry to place a note of this order before the bench handling PILs whenever the petitioner files a fresh petition, effectively creating a procedural red flag against future vexatious litigation. This decision serves as a significant reminder that while the gates of justice are always open, they are not to be used as a forum for repetitive, frivolous, or politically motivated challenges that undermine judicial resources.