Pleas Challenging New Criminal Laws Withdrawn From Supreme Court With Liberty To File More Comprehensive Petitions
The Supreme Court today disposed of two petitions challenging the three new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, while reserving liberty for filing of more comprehensive, fresh petitions.
In passing the order, the Court emphasized on the need for the issue to be addressed by the petitioners more appropriately and with extreme caution.
The two petitions - first, filed by Anjale Patel and Chhaya, and second, filed by BRS leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally - were listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
When the first case was called out, accommodation was sought on behalf of the petitioners, as Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy was stated to be appearing in the RG Kar case. However, going through the petition, Justice Kant said to the counsel appearing on behalf of Guruswamy:
"Do some homework. Don't file petitions like this. Suppose for want of proper averments, if we also take a view, then the entire challenge will collapse...".
Moving on to the next petition, the bench expressed a similar view. "Next petition also...Mr Nagamuthu is appearing...Such a serious issue and ground taken here...first reproduce the provision, then illustrate the consequences of that provision, then you will state these consequences are violative of so and so...just saying Parliamentary debates...how are we going to control Parliamentary proceedings? Please don't expect us to...we know our limitations and jurisdiction", said Justice Kant.
Underlining the importance of the matter, the judge added that everything has to be correlated and grounds have to be taken with utmost care. Though Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu urged that the petitioner(s) may be allowed to raise additional grounds, instead of disposing of the case with liberty to file afresh, the bench conveyed that the latter course of action would be better.
As such, both petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to file comprehensive, fresh petitions on the same cause.
It is apposite to mention that the first petition sought the immediate constitution of an expert committee to review the viability of the three new criminal laws. In addition, the petitioners prayed for a stay on the operation and implementation of the laws.
It was stated that the relevant Bills were passed without any proper parliamentary debate as most MPs were under suspension. Thus, such action had led to no debate on the elements of the Bills with no challenges. Notably, when the relevant Bills were passed in Lok Sabha on December 20, 141 opposition MPs (from both houses) stood suspended.
The second was a public interest litigation preferred by Boinpally, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the 3 new criminal laws. He claimed that the laws were passed in haste, without proper application of mind and/or consultation with states, which are key stakeholders in their implementation.
'Drafted In Casual Manner' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Lawyer's PIL Challenging New Criminal Laws
Case Title:
(1) Anjale Patel and Another v. Union of India and Another, W.P.(Crl.) No.307/2024
(2) Vinod Kumar Boinpally v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 306/2024