In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. S. N. Kundra, challenging the constitutionality of several fundamental provisions of the Constitution of India and an oath taken by armed forces. The court not only rejected the petition but also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner for bringing forth a case with “no merit.”
Background of the Case
The writ petition, numbered 347 of 2024, was filed by Dr. S. N. Kundra under Article 32 of the Constitution. Dr. Kundra appeared in person to argue the case. The petition sought a declaration that several constitutional provisions, including Articles 52, 53, 75(4), 77, 102(2), 164(3), 191(2), 246, 361, 368, and the oath taken by the armed forces, as well as Section 149 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, were unconstitutional.
The petitioner argued that these provisions violated fundamental tenets of constitutional law and democracy. Dr. Kundra’s petition requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to declare these provisions unconstitutional and to provide any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Constitutional Validity of Articles 52, 53, 75(4), 77, 102(2), 164(3), 191(2), 246, 361, 368: The petitioner challenged the validity of multiple articles of the Constitution that pertain to the executive powers of the President and the Governor, the oath of office for ministers, disqualifications of members of Parliament and state legislatures, the legislative powers of the Parliament, and provisions related to amendments of the Constitution.
2. Oath Taken by Armed Forces: The petitioner questioned the oath of allegiance taken by the armed forces, alleging it conflicts with democratic principles.
3. Section 149 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: The petitioner also sought to declare Section 149 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita unconstitutional without providing specific reasons in the public domain for such a claim.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
Upon hearing the arguments presented by Dr. S. N. Kundra, the court found no substance in the claims made by the petitioner. In its order, the bench stated:
“We see no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
The court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to provide a substantial basis for declaring such fundamental constitutional provisions and statutory sections unconstitutional. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, directing that this amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one week from the date of the order.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Dr. S. N. Kundra (Petitioner-in-person)
– Respondent: Union of India
