A fresh wave of legal contention has surfaced before the Supreme Court as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenges the recent implementation of revised criminal legislation, which abolishes the longstanding colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and Evidence Act.
Filed by advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, the PIL seeks urgent judicial intervention to address concerns over the newly enacted laws.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar PIL, citing grounds for dismissal.
Undeterred, the latest plea requests the immediate formation of an expert committee to evaluate the viability and implications of the newly introduced statutes:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
According to the petition, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita incorporates substantial elements from the IPC but introduces community service as an alternative form of punishment.
A new offense threatening national sovereignty, unity, and integrity has replaced the criminalization of sedition.
Additionally, terrorism has been explicitly addressed as an offense under this legislation.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Regarding the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the PIL expresses apprehension over provisions permitting up to 15 days of police custody within the initial phases of judicial proceedings, potentially leading to prolonged detention without bail.
The petition warns against potential misuse of such provisions, particularly affecting marginalized communities vulnerable to custodial violence.
Critically, the PIL also questions the legislative process, citing irregularities in the parliamentary approval of the bills.
It highlights concerns over the passing of laws in Parliament amidst the suspension of numerous members and minimal participation, echoing remarks made by former Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, on the repercussions of hasty legislative action.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
The PIL notes that the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam retains core provisions from the Indian Evidence Act, including those that govern confessions, relevancy of facts, and burden of proof.
In response to these legal developments, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued a statement urging restraint among legal bodies nationwide, advising against protests or agitation.
Instead, the BCI announced plans to engage in dialogue with the Union Government to convey apprehensions voiced by the legal fraternity regarding the revised criminal laws.
As the judiciary prepares to deliberate on the PIL, the outcome remains uncertain amidst widespread legal and societal implications stemming from the enactment of these transformative legislations.
Also Read: President Droupadi Murmu Assures Action On NEET-UG Paper Leak
