Overview The Supreme Court on 23 February 2026 expressed concerns that the 2013 Lalita Kumari judgment is being mis‑used, especially after the enactment of the new criminal statutes, the BNS and the BNSS . The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard a petition challenging Section 173 of the BNSS, which re‑introduces a limited preliminary inquiry for offences carrying 3‑7 years of imprisonment. Key Developments The petition argues that allowing police discretion under Section 173(3) contravenes the mandatory FIR registration laid down in Lalita Kumari. CJI Surya Kant warned that the judgment has generated a flood of frivolous FIRs, burdening courts with quash petitions. Justice Bagchi contended that the BNSS merely expands categories already recognised by Lalita Kumari; it does not overturn the precedent. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy maintained that police cannot verify the truth of allegations and that the law should not shift that burden to them. The Court suggested a “watch‑and‑wait” approach, allowing the new law to operate for a few years before judicial interference. Important Facts • The original Lalita Kumari ruling excluded preliminary inquiry for most cognizable offences, except for matrimonial disputes, corruption, medical negligence, and cases with inordinate delay. • Under the BNSS, a police officer may seek DySP permission to conduct a preliminary enquiry for offences punishable with imprisonment of **3‑7 years**. • The petition (Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2024) was filed by senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy and S Nagamuthu, representing separate challenges to the BNSS. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between judicial pronouncements and legislative reforms is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) – especially the principles of **access to justice**, **rule of law**, and **separation of powers**. Aspirants should note how the Supreme Court balances **judicial activism** with **legislative intent**, a recurring theme in essay and interview questions. The case also illustrates the practical implications of **criminal law reforms** (BNS/BNSS) on policing and the rights of citizens, linking to **GS 3 (Security & Law Enforcement)**. Way Forward • Monitor how the BNSS’s expanded preliminary‑inquiry provision functions in practice; data on FIR registrations and quash petitions will inform future judicial review. • Lawmakers may need to clarify the scope of police discretion to avoid arbitrary classification and ensure compliance with the spirit of Lalita Kumari. • UPSC candidates should track subsequent judgments or parliamentary debates that may refine the balance between mandatory FIR registration and investigative flexibility.