SUPREME COURT FLAGS FREQUENT MISUSE OF LALITA KUMARI RULING WHILE EXAMINING BNSS FIR PROVISIONS:

The Supreme Court on Friday made significant oral observations on the practical consequences of its 2013 ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that the judgment, which mandated compulsory registration of FIRs upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, has been extensively misused over the years. The Court observed that the strict mandate has contributed to the filing of numerous frivolous FIRs, which in turn has burdened constitutional courts with an increasing number of petitions seeking quashing of such FIRs at the threshold.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions challenging various provisions of the new criminal statutes, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. One of the provisions under scrutiny was Section 173 of the BNSS, which permits the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry in specific categories of cases before registering an FIR.

The Court noted that the Lalita Kumari judgment had ruled out preliminary inquiries prior to FIR registration except in limited categories such as matrimonial disputes, corruption cases, medical negligence, and matters involving inordinate delay. However, it observed that the rigid application of this mandate has resulted in unintended consequences. The Bench expressed concern that the requirement of automatic FIR registration, without any scope for preliminary scrutiny, has encouraged vexatious complaints and has led to misuse of the criminal process by disgruntled or malicious litigants.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Section 173 of the BNSS violates the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari by permitting the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry. She contended that such a provision empowers the police to test the veracity of allegations, which was expressly discouraged by the 2013 judgment. The Court, however, questioned whether it was realistic to exclude the police entirely from any preliminary assessment, particularly in cases involving serious but not gravest offences.

Justice Bagchi observed that the law cannot remain frozen in time based solely on one judicial precedent. He noted that even the Lalita Kumari judgment itself had recognised the legitimacy of preliminary inquiries in certain categories of cases. According to the Court, the BNSS has merely expanded and codified these categories by linking them to the severity of punishment, specifically offences punishable with imprisonment ranging from three to seven years. The Bench clarified that while the rationality or arbitrariness of such classification could be examined, it could not be argued that the concept of preliminary inquiry under the BNSS was inherently contrary to Lalita Kumari.

The Court further emphasised that access to justice and procedural safeguards must evolve in response to societal realities. It cautioned against judicial overreach based on abstract principles without adequate consideration of ground realities, particularly in rural and socially diverse contexts. The Bench also indicated that newly enacted legislation should be allowed to operate for a reasonable period so that its practical working can be assessed, rather than being prematurely invalidated on theoretical grounds.

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned for detailed hearing after the Holi vacation. The petitions before the Court included one filed by Azad Singh Kataria and a connected petition filed by the Mannargudi Bar Association, represented by Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, both challenging certain provisions of the BNSS.