1. Public Interest Litigation seeking declaration of certain sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as unconstitutional after identical earlier petition was dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
UPENDRA NATH DALAI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY (COORDINATION) – Respondent
W.P.(C)-17119/2025
Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Upendra Nath Dalai
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Ankur Mittal, Amit Gupta, Sucharu Garg, Rabaica Jaiswal, Shubham Sharma, Naman
For the Petitioners: Upendra Nath Dalai
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Ankur Mittal, Amit Gupta, Sucharu Garg, Rabaica Jaiswal, Shubham Sharma, Naman
Filing multiple public interest litigations on identical challenge after dismissal is an abuse of process; court will dismiss with warning and may flag future petitions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 147 to 158 and 189 to 197 - Public Interest Litigation - Res judicata and abuse of process - Petitioner filed identical PIL challenging constitutionality of the said sections after earlier PIL dismissed - Court held that merely replacing word 'abolish' with 'declare' does not change the challenge - Filing multiple frivolous petitions in guise of public interest not appreciated - Court gave stern warning against future vexatious petitions and directed registry to flag any further PIL by petitioner.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner earlier filed W.P.
(C) 9364/2025 seeking abolition of the same sections; it was dismissed as seeking direction to Parliament to legislate. Review also dismissed. Present PIL seeks declaration of those sections as unconstitutional. Court notes identity of challenge.
Findings of Court:
The petition is frivolous and vexatious. Statements in petition border on contempt. Court dismisses with warning, no costs imposed in view of petitioner’s status as security guard.
Issues: Whether a subsequent PIL on identical challenge is maintainable after dismissal of earlier PIL? Whether court can direct Parliament to amend law?
Ratio Decidendi: Mere change in wording does not create new cause of action; repeated filing of frivolous PILs amounts to abuse of process; court cannot direct legislature to enact or amend laws.
Result: PIL dismissed along with pending application; Registry directed to place order before the Court dealing with PILs upon future filings by petitioner.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. PIL dismissed with stern warning; Registry directed to flag future PILs by same petitioner. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Is it permissible under Article 226 to seek a direction to Parliament to legislate an amending Act?
No, such a prayer cannot be granted as it would amount to directing the legislature to legislate, which is beyond the court's jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 5 )
4. Can a petitioner file multiple public interest litigations on an identical challenge after dismissal of the first?
No, filing multiple PILs on identical challenges is not appreciated and amounts to abuse of process. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 )
5. What action may a court take against a litigant filing frivolous and vexatious public interest petitions?
The court may dismiss the petition with a stern warning and direct the Registry to flag future petitions by the same litigant. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
J U D G E M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration of Sections 147 to 158 under Chapter VII titled as “Of offences against the State” and Sections 189 to 197 under Chapter XI titled as “Of offences against the Public Tranquility” of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as unconstitutional.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner in person had earlier filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 9364/2025 in the nature of a PIL seeking
identical prayers, though worded differently, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2025. The same reads thus:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner in person as well as, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG representing respondent.
2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as follows:-
“(A) issue a notice/ direction (s)/order to the respondents to abolish the sections 147 to 158 with the title "of offence against the state" in the chapter VII of the BharatiyaNyay Sanhita 2023 in the constitution of India.
(B) issue a notice/direction(s)/order to the respondents to abolish the sections 189 to 197 with the title "Of Offence against the public tranquility” in the chapter XI of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 in The Constitution of India.”
3. We have perused the prayers made in the petition.Essentially,what the petitioner is asking the Court is to give a direction to the Parliament to legislate an amending Act.
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
[emphasis supplied]
3. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application seeking review of the order dated 09.07.2025 which also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2025, which reads thus:-
“REV. PETITION 453/2025 (by petitioner)
1. This petition seeks review of our order dated 09.07.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed by stating the reason that the prayer in the writ petition could not be granted as essentially, the petitioner was seeking the relief that the Court may issue a direction to the Parliament to legislate an amending Act.
2. The review petitioner, who appears in person, has stated that he may be permitted to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition.
3. We are afraid no such ground is available for seeking review of the order
dated 09.07.2025. If the petitioner intends to institute any other writ petition with certain prayers other than the ones made in W.P.(C) 9364/2025, it is needless to say that he will be at liberty to institute a fresh petition.
4. The review petition is, thus, dismissed.”
4. It is also pertinent to reproduce hereunder the prayers sought in the present PIL:-
“(a) issue a notice/direction (s)/order to the respondents to declare the sections 147 to 158 with the title "of offence against the state" in the chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 in the constitution of India are invalid.
(b) issue a notice/ direction (s)/order to the respondents to declare the sections 189 to 197 with the title "Of Offence against the public tranquility" in the chapter XI of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 in the Constitution of India are invalid.”
5. It is apparent from the reading of the prayers sought in the present purported PIL and the previous PIL bearing W.P.(C) 9364/2025 that essentially, the challenge laid is the same. 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.
6. It is also essential to note that the petitioner in person has been filing several other frivolous petitions in the nature of PIL and has been cautioned by this Court on multiple occasions
