The Supreme Court on Friday said its 2013 ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh has been “abused a lot” over the years. The Court made the remark while hearing petitions that challenge provisions of the new criminal laws, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
What the BNSS provision says
The challenge includes Section 173 of the BNSS, which allows a preliminary enquiry in certain cases. Under Section 173(3), the officer in charge of a police station may conduct a preliminary enquiry after taking permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). The provision applies to offences punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years.
Petitioner’s argument: BNSS violates Lalita Kumari
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the petitioner, argued that Section 173(3) breaches the mandate in Lalita Kumari. She said the 2013 judgment required registration of an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognisable offence, and it allowed preliminary enquiry only in limited categories.
She also argued that police cannot test the truth of allegations at the pre-FIR stage.
Court’s observations on misuse and “ground realities”
However, the Bench pointed to how the Lalita Kumari directions worked in practice. It noted that the mandate to register FIRs has led to many frivolous cases. As a result, it has also increased petitions seeking quashing of FIRs.
CJI Surya Kant voiced concern about the real-world fallout. He said courts sometimes deliver judgments from “ivory towers.” He added that the rule has fuelled heavy litigation. Further, he warned that “cantankerous people” could misuse the process and disturb the “fabric of the country.”
When Guruswamy said police should not verify allegations before an FIR, the CJI asked: “Who else will verify?”
Justice Bagchi: law need not remain “crystallised”
Meanwhile, Justice Bagchi said access to justice cannot remain permanently “crystallised” in the Lalita Kumari framework. He noted that Lalita Kumari itself allowed preliminary enquiry in some situations. According to him, the BNSS expands the space for preliminary enquiry by linking it to the degree of punishment.
He added that the Court can test Parliament’s classification on grounds such as arbitrariness or lack of rational basis. Yet, he said, the petitioner cannot argue that the BNSS provision stands “in the teeth of Lalita Kumari.” In other words, the petitioners must attack the classification, not merely cite Lalita Kumari as a bar.
What happened next
The Bench indicated that the Court should allow the new law to operate for a few years. Then, it can assess its functioning before intervening on broad principles.
The Court adjourned the matter for hearing after the Holi vacations.
Case Title: AZAD SINGH KATARIA v. UNION OF INDIA
Advocates: Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy (for Azad Singh Kataria); Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu (for Mannargudi Bar Association, connected petition)
