'Drafted In Casual Manner' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Lawyer's PIL Challenging New Criminal Laws

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 20) refused to entertain a petition challenging the new criminal laws which have been enacted by the Parliament to replace the Indian Penal Code 1860, Indian Evidence ACt 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

After the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition, petitioner Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who appeared as party-in-person, chose to withdraw it. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

He challenged the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which substitute the IPC, IEA and the CrPC with effect from July 1, 2024.

As soon as the matter was taken, the vacation bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal told Tiwari that they are dismissing the matter. Though Tiwari sought liberty to file a representation before the Government raising his concerns, the bench declined. Justice Trivedi told Tiwari, after he expressed his intention to withdraw the petition, that if he had argued the matter, then the petition would have been dismissed with costs.

"The petition is drafted in a casual manner," Justice Mithal observed. "The law has not come into force," Justice Trivedi added. In February, a bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud had dismissed a similar petition observing that the laws are yet to come into force.

The PIL was filed on January 3, 2024 after the new criminal laws received President Droupadi Murmu's assent on December 25, 2023.  

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.  

Filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, the PIL sought a stay on the implementation of the 3 new criminal laws, as well as a direction for the 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.

 Case Details : VISHAL TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA | Diary No. 454-2024