The Supreme Court dismisses a writ petition challenging the phrase "is or has been a Sessions Judge" in Section 20(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The provision in question, Section 20(2)(a), which uses the phrase "is or has been a Sessions Judge," was challenged for allegedly violating constitutional principles. The case, Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India, saw the petitioner questioning the legal foundation of this expression.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, found no constitutional violation or legal impediment in the usage of the phrase. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the challenge was misconceived and lacked any legal basis.
The petitioner, represented by advocates Mr. Suvidutt M.S., Ms. Deepika Singh, and Ms. Disha Puri, argued against the validity of the provision. On the other side, the Union of India was represented by advocates Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mrs. Sunita Arora, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Shivam Bedi, and Mr. Vinay Chadda.
The decision reaffirms the court's stance on maintaining the integrity of legislative provisions unless a clear constitutional breach is evident. This ruling is seen as a reinforcement of the legislative intent behind the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and a reminder of the judiciary's role in interpreting, rather than legislating, laws.
Bottom Line:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the expression "is or has been a Sessions Judge" contained in Section 20(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and dismissed the writ petition challenging its validity.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 20(2)(a)
Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858658
