A Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) has been filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the three new criminal laws which received President Droupadi Murmu's assent last month on December 25. The laws, viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, are set to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure...
A Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) has been filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the three new criminal laws which received President Droupadi Murmu's assent last month on December 25.
The laws, viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, are set to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. However, the date from which the provisions of the new laws shall take effect is yet to be notified.
Filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, the PIL seeks inter-alia a stay on the implementation of the 3 new criminal laws, as well as a direction for immediate constitution of an expert committee, under the chairmanship of a former judge of the Supreme Court, to examine the viability of the laws.
It avers that there were irregularities and discrepancies in the enactment of the 3 laws, inasmuch as the relevant Bills were passed without any proper parliamentary debate, when most MPs were under suspension. Notably, when the relevant Bills were passed in Lok Sabha on December 20, 141 opposition MPs (from both houses) stood suspended.
On this aspect, Advocate Tiwari draws attention to an occasion when former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had raised a concern in 2021 w.r.t. enactment of laws without proper Parliamentary debates.
"Parliamentary debate is a fundamental part of democratic lawmaking...Debates and discussions are helpful to make necessary adjustments and amendments to a bill so that it can effectively fulfill its purpose. These can be helpful in Courts while interpreting laws", says the plea.
Highlighting issues of resource constraints and impact of the changed position on legal aid/pro bono work, the plea adds that, “lawyers may face challenges in interpreting and navigating these complexities, potentially leading to delays and legal uncertainties”.
It further claims that the changes brought about through the new criminal laws are draconian and seek to establish police state in reality, besides asserting that they violate fundamental rights of the people of India.
"If the British laws were considered colonial and draconian, then the Indian laws stands now far more draconian as in British period you could keep a person in police custody for a maximum of 15 days. Extending 15 days to 90 days and more, is a shocking provision enabling police torture", states the plea.
It is worthwhile to mention that concerns in connection with the 3 criminal laws had also been earlier raised by opposition leaders such as Adhir Ranjan Choudhary and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who highlighted potential violations of human rights and the inadequacy of safeguards against excesses by law enforcement agencies.