'Parliament Has Absolute Prerogative To Enact Laws': Supreme Court On Sedition Pleas

Hearing petitions alleging that the sedition provision was being brought back under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Supreme Court on Friday said Parliament has "absolute prerogative" to enact laws, and is not bound by any undertaking given by the Centre

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering the petitions questioning the validity of Section 152 of the BNS. The section criminalises acts that excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatism, or endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India

An advocate appearing for the petitioners claimed Section 152 reintroduces Section 124A (sedition) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.

The advocate pointed out that, in May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had put the colonial-era penal law on sedition on hold till an "appropriate" government forum re-examined it, and directed the Centre and states not to register any fresh first information reports (FIRs) invoking the offence.

The lawyer said the Centre had given an undertaking before the court that it would review the law. He argued that the government could not reintroduce the provision in the BNS after giving the undertaking.

Responding to this, the bench said, "The Union of India may have given an undertaking before the court, but Parliament is not bound by it. Parliament has the absolute prerogative to enact a law".

'Ivory Towers'

The counsel then referred to Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and said it violates the Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari judgment, which mandates the registration of an FIR if the information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence.

The lawyer argued that Section 173 allows the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding in a matter.

Observing that the Lalita Kumari verdict has been misused several times, the bench said, "Sometimes judgments are delivered sitting in ivory towers."

It added that the Lalita Kumari verdict also states that a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to find out whether a cognisable offence is disclosed or not.

The matter was then posted for hearing after the Holi vacations.

Last year, the top court had issued a notice to the Centre on a separate PIL against the validity of Section 152 of the BNS.