NEW DELHI: In an unusual introspective remark, Chief Justice Surya Kant-led bench of the Supreme Court on Friday said on several occasions the apex court passes sweeping orders unmindful of India’s social ground realities and without understanding their adverse impact on the social fabric.When a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the sedition provision in BNS and a provision in BNSS allowing police to conduct preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR came up for hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy said permitting police to conduct preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR was in violation of SC ruling in the 2014 Lalita Kumari judgment. ‘Justice Delayed Is Justice Destroyed’: CJI Kant Calls High Courts Key Guardians Of Citizens’ Rights The SC in the 2014 judgment had ruled that if a complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, then the police must immediately register an FIR but can conduct preliminary inquiry into such complaints relating to matrimonial disputes, medical negligence and some other categories of cases.If police can’t verify complaint before FIR, who else will: SCCJI Kant said, to test the validity of provisions of any new law, one must wait for a few years to observe its working and on finding lacunae; the same could be challenged. “Do you know how Lalita Kumari ruling is abused by filing frivolous cases for registration of FIRs? How judicial forums are abused,” he asked.The CJI said, “In some cases, we pass sweeping orders as if sitting in ivory towers and without realising the social realities in the country. Frivolous complaints lodged in the heat of the moment in rural areas, when converted to FIRs, have the potential of causing deep animosity in society.”Justice Kant said, “We pass sweeping orders in the name of protecting fundamental rights which in reality disturb the social fabric.” Guruswamy said how can the police have the power to determine the veracity of a complaint at the time of registration of FIR to argue that police can do so after registering the FIR.The bench said, “If police can’t determine the veracity of the complaint prior to converting it into an FIR, who else will?” Justice Bagchi said, “Lalita Kumar judgment gives the power of preliminary inquiry power to police in several categories of cases, including matrimonial disputes. Legislature has reflected this aspect in the law with respect to the degree of punishment provided for the offences. Such a provision cannot be at the teeth of Lalita Kumari judgment.”Guruswamy argued that the sedition provision was incorporated in BNS despite Union govt undertaking before the SC not to do it. SC said, “Union govt can give such an undertaking. But Parliament is not bound by it. Parliament has the exclusive power to enact legislation. While testing its validity, SC can interpret and read it down.” It posted the petitions for a detailed hearing in March second week.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosThree Fault Lines, One Open War: Security Expert Breaks Down Why Pakistan’s Taliban Gamble FailedPak-Afghan War: Security Expert Say Conflict Could End Badly for IslambadWho Is Really Running Pakistan’s Afghan Policy? Experts React To Islamabad’s AggressionIndia, Israel Backs Kabul: Pak Journalist’s Shocking Claims on Afghan Actions Against IslamabadAmid Rising Violence, Afghanistan Urges Pakistan For Talks To Prevent Prolonged Conflict“Deep Concern”: China Alarms As Pakistan-Afghanistan Clash Explodes After Taliban StrikeKejriwal Gets Clean Chit In Delhi Liquor Policy Case, Court Tears Into CBI Over Lack Of EvidencePakistan Army Blames India Again For ‘Open War’ Against Afghanistan, Calls Taliban Delhi’s ProxyCanada PM Mark Carney Lands In India, Aims For Fresh Push To Reset Strained Bilateral TiesPakistan in Open War With Afghanistan, But Does Islamabad Have the Military Muscle?123Photostories5 wetlands in North India to visit before the winter migratory season endsThe most powerful mantra to remove fear and anxietyFrom Thalapathy Vijay to Dhanush: South Indian celebrity divorces that shocked fansThe 50: From Yuvika Chaudhary getting upset with Mr Faisu to Sidharth Bharadwaj’s eviction; Top moments from the episode5 plants you should NEVER place near the main door as per Vastu and why3-ingredient breakfast dishes for working women and what makes them specialDitch the pastel winds: What Vijay Deverakonda’s and Rashmika Mandanna’s wedding outfits taught us3 office rules you should always follow for a peaceful life and better work-life balance6 Indian billionaires who own private residence worth crores in Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, DelhiFrom red anarkali to yellow suit: Rashmika Mandanna’s newlywed glow steals the spotlight123Hot PicksPakistan-Afghanistan warIndia GDP growthGold rate todayAir ticket refund rulesIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays February 2026Bank Holidays februaryTop TrendingResident Evil RequiemDenver BroncosNFL RumorsHSR Stellaron Hunter Blade skinLos Angeles DodgersCody BellingerTony DungyShai Gilgeous AlexanderNFL CombineTony Dungy
NEW DELHI: In an unusual introspective remark, Chief Justice Surya Kant-led bench of the Supreme Court on Friday said on several occasions the apex court passes sweeping orders unmindful of India’s social ground realities and without understanding their adverse impact on the social fabric.When a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the sedition provision in BNS and a provision in BNSS allowing police to conduct preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR came up for hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy said permitting police to conduct preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR was in violation of SC ruling in the 2014 Lalita Kumari judgment.
The SC in the 2014 judgment had ruled that if a complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, then the police must immediately register an FIR but can conduct preliminary inquiry into such complaints relating to matrimonial disputes, medical negligence and some other categories of cases.If police can’t verify complaint before FIR, who else will: SCCJI Kant said, to test the validity of provisions of any new law, one must wait for a few years to observe its working and on finding lacunae; the same could be challenged. “Do you know how Lalita Kumari ruling is abused by filing frivolous cases for registration of FIRs? How judicial forums are abused,” he asked.The CJI said, “In some cases, we pass sweeping orders as if sitting in ivory towers and without realising the social realities in the country. Frivolous complaints lodged in the heat of the moment in rural areas, when converted to FIRs, have the potential of causing deep animosity in society.”Justice Kant said, “We pass sweeping orders in the name of protecting fundamental rights which in reality disturb the social fabric.” Guruswamy said how can the police have the power to determine the veracity of a complaint at the time of registration of FIR to argue that police can do so after registering the FIR.The bench said, “If police can’t determine the veracity of the complaint prior to converting it into an FIR, who else will?” Justice Bagchi said, “Lalita Kumar judgment gives the power of preliminary inquiry power to police in several categories of cases, including matrimonial disputes. Legislature has reflected this aspect in the law with respect to the degree of punishment provided for the offences. Such a provision cannot be at the teeth of Lalita Kumari judgment.”Guruswamy argued that the sedition provision was incorporated in BNS despite Union govt undertaking before the SC not to do it. SC said, “Union govt can give such an undertaking. But Parliament is not bound by it. Parliament has the exclusive power to enact legislation. While testing its validity, SC can interpret and read it down.” It posted the petitions for a detailed hearing in March second week.
