A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court against the newly amended criminal law bills: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioners, Anjali Patel and Chhaya, represented by advocates Sanjeev Malhotra and Kunwar Siddhartha, are seeking an expert committee to assess the viability of these new laws, which aim to overhaul the country's criminal justice system by replacing the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
The plea highlights several concerns with the new laws. The petitioners argue that the proposed bills, despite some changes, suffer from defects and discrepancies.
They point out that the bills were withdrawn and reintroduced with modifications before being passed by Parliament on December 21, 2023, and published in the Gazette on December 25, 2023, effectively becoming law.
One significant issue raised in the plea is that the changes made to the criminal laws are unprecedented and claim to replace old colonial laws. The petitioners argue that while the new laws aim to modernise the criminal justice system, they retain many offences from the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
For instance, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces community service as a form of punishment and removes sedition as an offence, replacing it with a new offence for acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
It also adds terrorism and organised crime as offences, with specific provisions for crimes like kidnapping, extortion, and cybercrime committed by crime syndicates.
Additionally, murder by a group of five or more people based on identity markers such as caste, language, or personal belief is now punishable by seven years to life imprisonment or death.
The petitioners also express concerns about the new provisions allowing up to 15 days of police custody, which can be authorised in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the 60 or 90 days period of judicial custody. This, they argue, could lead to the denial of bail for the entire period if the police have not exhausted the 15 days of custody.
The plea further notes irregularities in the passage of the bills in Parliament. It states that many Members of Parliament were suspended during the passage of the bills, leading to very little participation and no substantial debate on the elements of the bills. This lack of debate and challenge, according to the petitioners, undermines the legislative process.
The petitioners are calling for the Supreme Court to stay the operation and implementation of the three new criminal laws until a thorough assessment is conducted.
They believe that an expert committee should be constituted to evaluate the new laws' impact on the criminal justice system and ensure that they are in the best interest of justice and fairness.
This PIL highlights the need for careful scrutiny and debate when making significant changes to the legal framework governing criminal justice in the country.
The petitioners' concerns underscore the importance of a transparent and inclusive legislative process to ensure that new laws serve the public interest and uphold the principles of justice.
Follow us
