Introduction:

In the matter of Upendra Nath Dalai v. Union of India, a public interest litigation came up before the Delhi High Court wherein the petitioner, Upendra Nath Dalai, an individual from Odisha, appeared in person to challenge the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, branding it a “criminal act” of the Union Government. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed serious reservations over the maintainability and content of the PIL, finding the plea to be incoherent, legally unfounded, and lacking any serious grievance or valid prayer.

Arguments:

The petition, as submitted, alleged that the enactment of the BNS — which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — was akin to the government “killing its parents”, a metaphorical reference to the petitioner’s view that the statute undermines the Constitution and its basic structure.

The Union Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, strongly opposed the plea, terming it “absolutely frivolous” and demanding that it be dismissed summarily at the threshold.

Judgement:

The Court noted that the petition failed to articulate any clear grievance or request for relief, and further remarked on the petitioner’s lack of legal training. Upon being questioned by the Court on whether he had studied law, Dalai candidly admitted that he had not, and that his petition was based on content he had seen on the internet. Given this, the Court asked if he required legal assistance, which the petitioner agreed to. A lady lawyer present in the courtroom volunteered to speak with the petitioner in Odia and explain the legal ramifications of the plea. After conferring with her during the post-lunch session, the petitioner agreed to withdraw his petition. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, while granting liberty to file a fresh one with proper legal pleadings and appropriate reliefs if so advised. The bench also took note of the increasing trend of misusing the PIL jurisdiction and remarked that there must be a limit to frivolity, especially when the petition uses unsubstantiated allegations and bizarre metaphors without any legal foundation. This matter highlighted the importance of informed legal drafting and the need for responsible exercise of the right to constitutional remedies.