High Court in Delhi denies petition challenging State offence and public peace regulations as outlined in BNS.
In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Upendra Nath Dalai, challenging the constitutionality of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions related to offences against the State and public tranquility.
The BNS, which came into effect on July 1, 2025, replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as part of a comprehensive overhaul of India's criminal justice system. The new law introduces significant improvements over the IPC, including clear provisions against mob lynching and organized crime, modern cybercrime laws, harsher punishments for hit-and-run cases, and community service as an alternative punishment for minor offences.
In the PIL, Mr. Dalai argued that the BNS, being a remnant of colonial law, suppresses democratic rights and freedoms. However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal observed that the issue falls within the domain of the parliament and the Court cannot issue directions to the parliament.
The Court's decision also implies that it cannot give a direction to the Lok Sabha, India's lower house of parliament, to come forth with an amending Act of BNS. The petition, therefore, could not be entertained by the Court.
The Union government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, did not contest the implementation of the BNS during the court proceedings. The Ministry of Home Affairs was made a party to the petition.
The BNS and related laws, as emphasized by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, aim to deliver justice within three years for any crime and focus on affordable, timely, and fair justice suited to Indian citizens rather than colonial-era controls. The new criminal law framework is operational and actively reshaping India's justice delivery.
As the BNS is currently in force nationwide, with extensive training and adoption across police and judicial systems, it appears that the legal challenges, including those raised in PILs such as by Upendra Nath Dalai, have either been resolved or have not resulted in any stay or delay in the implementation of the BNS. The Court's decision in this case reiterates the principle that the issue of amending laws falls within the domain of the parliament, and the Court cannot issue directions to the parliament.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a new law that justifies India's criminal justice system, has generated discussions in policy-and-legislation and general-news circles, as it aims to deliver fair, affordable, and timely justice, contrary to colonial-era controls. Despite the PIL petition challenging the constitutionality of certain BNS provisions, the Delhi High Court ruled that such issues fall within the parliament's jurisdiction, meaning the Court cannot issue directions to the parliament or the Lok Sabha for an amending Act of BNS.
