SC: Parliament Not Bound By Centre’s Sedition Undertaking
The bench observed that the court should allow a new law to operate for a few years and examine its operation before interfering.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : February 27, 2026 at 5:39 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday orally observed that an undertaking given by the Centre to reconsider the sedition law will not prevent Parliament from enacting a similar provision. "The Legislature cannot give an undertaking. The Union of India may have given one. Parliament is not bound by their undertaking", observed the apex court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, particularly Section 152(acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), which is questioned as a restoration of Section 124A(sedition) of the IPC.
The bench observed that the court should allow a new law to operate for a few years and examine its operation before interfering.
During the hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for petitioner Azad Singh Kataria, submitted, “Your lordships have passed a judgment on sedition, and the Union gave an undertaking to my lords, saying that we will withdraw this provision. But it (sedition) has been reintroduced. So, it cannot give the apex court an undertaking and reintroduce it”.
The CJI orally observed, “The Legislature cannot give an undertaking. The Union of India may have given one. Parliament is not bound by their undertaking. Parliament may still think that we may require a law on it. This argument does not impress at all.”
The CJI observed that some executive authority made a statement before the court that they would not, and Parliament can say, "Who are you to make a statement on our behalf?" “We want to enact this law. We will enact a law. Let the court examine whether it satisfies the constitutional principles or not,” the CJI observed.
The CJI observed, “Our area of operation is very clear. They have the prerogative to enact a law with their thinking process….but during the judicial review process, if we find that such provision is nothing, it cannot be reconciled, it cannot be interpreted in conformity with constitutional philosophy…that part we can always cure…”.
The counsel contended that the concerns expressed by the court regarding Section 124A IPC remain valid for Section 152 BNS.
She also flagged Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as violating the Lalita Kumari judgment because it allows the police the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in some cases. Lalita Kumari mandated that FIRs must be mandatorily registered if a cognizable offence is made out. It was argued before the bench that giving the police discretion to register an FIR is dangerous.
The CJI observed that the Lalita Kumari judgment has also been abused a lot, leading to frivolous FIRs. The CJI observed that sometimes judgments are given while sitting in ivory towers and asked, “Have you seen what kind of litigation that judgment has generated?”
The bench asked how much that judgment has been abused in this country?
“All cantankerous people misuse. Without knowing our societal situations, ground realities and rural communities, without understanding how people are living, we keep on passing judgments in the name of perceived rights, and lead to completely disturbing the fabric of the country”, observed the CJI.
It was argued that the police cannot verify the veracity of the allegations. "Who else will verify?" the CJI asked. The apex court adjourned the matter for further hearing after the Holi vacation.
