A petition challenging the implementation of three newly introduced sets of laws aimed at reforming India’s penal codes has been filed in the Supreme Court. The petition claims these laws contain numerous “defects and discrepancies.”
Passed by the Lok Sabha on December 21, the three crucial legislations — Bhartiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, and the Bhartiya Sakshya (Second) Bills — received approval from President Droupadi Murmu on December 25.
Also Read: Tsunami Warning Bells Ringing Across Japan After Earthquake Of Magnitude 7.6 Hits the Asian Nation
These new laws, intended to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, are being challenged in the petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari. The PIL seeks a halt in the operation of these laws, emphasizing that they were passed without proper parliamentary debate due to the suspension of numerous opposition members.
The petition urges the court to constitute an expert committee immediately to evaluate the feasibility and implications of these new criminal laws. It raises concerns that the new legislation is more stringent and could potentially lead to a police state, violating fundamental rights.
Particularly highlighted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are offenses related to acts of secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist movements, or actions endangering India’s sovereignty or unity, offering a revised version of the sedition law.
Also Read: 2024 to be a year of Gaganyaan readiness: ISRO Chairman
The new laws broaden the scope of punishable actions by including verbal or written expression, visual representation, electronic communication, financial means, or any other means that might incite secession, armed rebellion, subversion, or threaten India’s unity or sovereignty. Such acts can now result in imprisonment for life or up to seven years, along with a fine.
The laws introduce ‘Deshdroh’ to replace ‘Rajdroh’, essentially covering acts against the nation rather than just the ruler, as earlier referenced in IPC Section 124A concerning sedition.
Furthermore, for the first time, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita defines terrorism, an absence in the IPC, while also expanding the magistrate’s power to impose fines and the criteria for declaring an individual a proclaimed offender.
The plea raises significant concerns about the severity of these new laws, emphasizing their potential impact on fundamental rights and the increased penalties they entail, urging the Supreme Court’s intervention and scrutiny.
