On June 27, 2024, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) of India seeking directions to stay the implementation of three new criminal laws as well as to constitute an expert committee to access and identify the validity of three new criminal laws. The three new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), were introduced to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively. These three new criminal laws are scheduled to come into effect from July 01, 2024. Yesterday (June 27), Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Kunwar Sidharth filed the petition before the SC. The plea states that “The title of the present Bills being Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is not accurate as per to Interpretation of Statutes, the title of these proposed bills does not speak about the statute and its motive but the present names of Acts are ambiguous in nature...” Moreover, the petition submitted that “The passing of the Bills in the Parliament was irregular as many Members of Parliament were suspended. There was very little people’s participation in the passage of the Bills.”
It also claimed, “...the new criminal bills does not bring any new changes from the previous ones. It is a way to create confusion among citizens and provide more power to the police and suppress the fundamental rights of people. The main motive of the bills was to decolonize the Indian laws, but on the contrary, the same laws are being repeated with no new explanations with additional powers granted to the police to rule people out of fear and deprive their fundamental rights.” The petition argued, “BNSS further empowers the police to seek custody in tranches for an extended period which may be at any time during the initial 40 or 60 days… A serious concern with this provision is that the investigating agency will be able to negate the bail granted to an accused by seeking custody in tranches. The prolongation of the period during which police custody can be sought also creates a problem as there is no criteria or guideline for exercise of such a power.” Moreover, the petition also cited the top court’s case where the question “whether the 15-day period of police custody should be confined to the first 15 days of remand or extend over the entire period of investigation—60 or 90 days, as applicable,” was referred to the larger bench.
Along with this, the petition also cited the statement of former Chief Justice NV Ramana regarding the enactment of laws without Parliamentary debates. The plea reads, “Parliamentary debate is a fundamental part of democratic lawmaking. In parliament, members’ debate bills before they vote on them. Because debates are public, they provide Members of Parliament (MPs) an opportunity to represent the views of constituents on the floor and give voice to voters’ concerns.” Another issue raised by the petitioner was regarding the BSA, “Major issues with Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are that The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic records may be tampered with… Currently, electronic records must be authenticated by a certificate to be admissible as documents. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 retains these provisions for admissibility. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 also classifies electronic evidence as documents (which may not need certification).” Lastly, the petitioner prayed for: