Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging BNS Provisions on Waging War Against India
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that criminalise the offence of waging war against the Government of India.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also warned the petitioner, Upendra Nath Dalai, and said it would consider imposing costs on him for repeatedly filing similar petitions that had already been dismissed earlier.
The Bench expressed concern that despite several rejections, Dalai continued to file identical petitions by slightly altering the wording of his prayers. “Merely changing the words of a petition will not make it a new one,” the Court remarked, cautioning him against misuse of judicial time.
The judges also noted that in previous hearings, assistance was provided to the petitioner, including the help of lawyers fluent in his native language, yet he persisted in making irrelevant arguments. They further pulled him up for unnecessarily referring to incidents like the Pulwama terror attack in his submissions.
“This is a court of law, not a platform for public debate. You are expected to argue on legal grounds, not personal opinions,” the Bench observed.
Dalai had challenged Sections 147 to 158 of the BNS, which define and punish offences related to waging war against India, as well as acts like aiding or sheltering a state prisoner or a prisoner of war escaping lawful custody. He claimed these provisions violated citizens’ fundamental rights.
However, the Court dismissed his argument, stating that he had failed to provide valid constitutional grounds for such a challenge. “These are not the grounds for a writ petition. Such content is fine for an article, but not for court proceedings,” the Bench said.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Central government, urged the Court to impose heavy costs, noting that the petitioner was a habitual litigant. He added, “The Court cannot be an open forum for anyone to say anything they wish. This is a serious matter.”
The Court concluded by reiterating that it would consider imposing monetary penalties on the petitioner before dismissing the PIL.
