The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking registration of FIR against all MPs, as well as Union Minister Amit Shah and LoP Rahul Gandhi for failing to notify Section 106(2) of Bharitiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653]

The provision defines penalty for hit-and-run incidents, where a driver causes death by rash and negligent driving and flees the scene without reporting the incident to the police or a Magistrate.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer Ritu Gauba who appeared in person.

As Gauba started giving political references and examples of politicians to support her petition, the Bench orally remarked: “Don't make this a political ground.”

The plea sought a direction on Delhi Police to register FIR against all MPs and to make efforts to enforce the provision in question in the ensuing monsoon session.

It further sought a direction to fine all MPs and deduct their funds till enforcement of Section 106(2) of BNS.

As per the plea, all people have a right to safe life when they are using Road, Footpaths, Highways, Flyovers etc. in the national capital.

“That all the M.Ps sitting in the parliament are Our Representatives enjoying lavish life style at our cost and expenses and are duty bound to work properly and responsibly or else be made answerable,” the plea said.

“That by changing the nomenclature of the penal laws Sh. Amit Shah had tried to befool the people of India as BNS, BNSS and BSA, 2023 are merely replica of the old IPC, Cr.P.C and Indian Evidence Act and are thus old wine in a new bottle,” it added.

Dismissing the plea, the Bench noted that in view of Section 1(2) of BNS 2023, the provisions of the Sanhita shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Sanhita.

The Court said that the discussion of notifying any provision is in the best interest of the central government and thus it is for the government to issue a notification as and when it deems fit and proper.

The Court said that the prayer made by Gauba to enforce the provision, in absence of any such notification, cannot be issued.

Finding other prayers incomprehensible, the Court rejected the plea finding it lacking merit.

Title: Ritu Gauba v. Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653