NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC on Wednesday found itself dealing with a curious case involving a self-represented litigant, an internet-inspired theory and a dramatic accusation that the Union government had committed a “criminal act” by updating the country’s penal laws.
The case was brought by one Upendra Nath Dalai, a native of Odisha, who filed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the law that recently replaced the Indian Penal Code of 1860.
According to Dalai, this legislative move was similar to the government “killing its parents” while referring, rather dramatically, to the Constitution and the basic structure of Indian democracy.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, appeared visibly unimpressed and puzzled.
“What sort of language is this? What exactly are you asking for?” the judges asked, clearly struggling to make sense of the plea.
Appearing for the Centre government, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma wasted no time in calling the petition “completely pointless and without any legal basis,” urging the Court to throw it out immediately.
As the judges flipped through the petition, they pointed out that it was nearly impossible to identify what Dalai was actually seeking. Suspecting the petitioner wasn’t taking the matter seriously, the Court bluntly asked how much he thought he should be fined.
The bench further inquired whether Dalai had any legal training. He admitted that he had none and had pieced the plea together using information from the internet. The judges, understandably exasperated, remarked that there must be some limit to filing such misguided petitions. “Have you studied law at all?” they asked, to which Dalai sheepishly replied no.
Since Dalai expressed a wish to seek legal help, the Court suggested appointing a lawyer who could speak in Odia to assist him. In a moment of unexpected kindness, a woman lawyer present in court volunteered to help and was asked to explain the legal flaws to Dalai, including the fact that costs might be imposed on him for wasting judicial time.
After a lunch break and, presumably, a much-needed legal reality check, the lawyer informed the bench that Dalai now wanted to withdraw his petition. Taking a lenient view, the Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn, while granting Dalai the option to file a fresh petition in the future, but only if he can frame it properly and with meaningful legal arguments.