The Public Interest Litigation PIL has been moved before the Supreme Court, wherein it challenged the three new criminal laws which received President Droupadi Murmu’s assent last month on December 25.
The three new criminal laws i.e., 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.
The date is yet to be notified from which the provisions of the new laws shall take effect.
The Public Interest Litigation, PIL is moved by one Advocate Vishal Tiwari wherein seeking inter-alia a stay on the implementation of the three new criminal laws, as well as a direction for immediate constitution of an expert committee, which being under the chairmanship of a former judge of the Supreme Court, in order to examine the viability of the laws.
It has also been averred before the court that there were irregularities and discrepancies in the enactment of the three laws, inasmuch as the relevant Bills were passed without any proper parliamentary debate, when most MPs were under suspension and when the relevant Bills were passed in Lok Sabha on December 20, 141 opposition MPs (from both houses) stood suspended.
The counsel, 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.
The petition moved stated that the Parliamentary debate is a fundamental part of democratic lawmaking. Thus, the debates and discussions are helpful to make necessary adjustments and amendments to a bill so that it can effectively fulfil its purpose. The same can be helpful in Courts while interpreting laws.
T
he court while highlighting the issues of resource constraints and impact of the changed position on legal aid/pro bono work, the plea adds that the lawyers may face challenges in interpreting and navigating these complexities, potentially leading to delays and legal uncertainties.
Further, it has been claimed before the court that the changes brought about through the new criminal laws are draconian and seeks to establish police state in reality, besides asserting that they violate fundamental rights of the people of India.
The petition moved stated that 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 and which may extend to 15 days to 90 days and more, is a shocking provision wherein enabling the police torture.
The court stated that it is worthwhile to mention that concerns in connection with the three criminal laws had also been earlier raised by opposition leaders such as Adhir Ranjan Choudhary and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who highlighted the potential violations of human rights and the inadequacy of safeguards against excesses by law enforcement agencies.
