On Friday, the Madras High Court raised concerns about the Central Government’s decision to repeal the existing criminal laws- the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Evidence Act- questioning why the government chose not to make necessary amendments to these laws instead. The remarks came during a hearing of three Public Interest Litigations (PILs). This was filed by DMK organising secretary RS Bharathi. He challenged the constitutional validity of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
The division bench comprised Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar. They expressed scepticism about the motive behind completely overhauling the existing laws. “Why did you want to change everything? Was it to confuse the people? You could have made small amendments,” Justice Sundar remarked. The bench voiced apprehension that the new laws would bring confusion. They may require judicial interpretations, ultimately causing delays in the justice delivery system.
Criticism
Justice Sundar also criticised the government for not adequately considering the Law Commission’s opinion while introducing the new laws. “When procedures are involved, citizens expect minimum protection. The Law Commission should be considered. Normally, in principle at least, even before touching a law for amendment. The legislature will refer the matter to the Law Commission,” he stated.
Senior Counsel NR Elango, represented the petitioner. He argued that the new laws had complicated the process of obtaining certificates for the admissibility of electronic evidence. He pointed out that the new laws required such certificates to be issued by experts. This is recognized only if their respective departments, bodies, or agencies are notified by the Central Government. With very few laboratories notified under the Information Technology Act of 2000. T this would create significant delays in proving cases involving electronic evidence in court.
Arguments
Elango argued that these delays would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. This guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
In his plea, RS Bharathi contended that the new laws aim to weaponize legal provisions. They are to criminalise democratic expressions of dissent. He argued that these laws dismantle fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. Such as the right to a free and fair trial, and centralise police power. Thus, providing immunity to police and state officials. Bharathi also described the new criminal laws as overly oppressive and arbitrary. This failed to balance the objectives with citizens’ fundamental rights.
Bharathi further argued that the Parliament passed the new laws without meaningful discussion. It should be against the legitimate expectations of citizens. He claimed that the new laws do not introduce substantial changes but merely reshuffle existing sections. Thus, causing confusion and inconvenience in their interpretation. He added that this shuffling would make it difficult for judges, advocates, law enforcement agencies. The public is to correlate the new provisions with the old ones for legal precedents.
Criticism On Laws
Additionally, Bharathi criticised the new laws as an attempt to “Sanskritise” the titles without a genuine effort to revisit the legal provisions. He argued that these laws were enacted by a single limb of Parliament, the ruling party and its allies. This is without the involvement of the opposition parties.
Recognizing the importance of the issues raised, the court has asked the Central Government to file a counter-affidavit. It is within four weeks and tagged the petition along with other pleas challenging the new criminal laws.
