PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Expert Committee To Assess New Criminal Laws, Says They Create Confusion & Increase Burden Of Lawyers

A petition seeking issuance of specific directions to immediately constitute an expert committee for assessing and identifying the viability of the three new criminal laws has been filed before the Supreme Court. In addition, the petition filed by AOR Kunwar Sidharth has also prayed to the Court for a stay on the operation and implementation of three new criminal laws. The laws, viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita are set to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively, with effect from July 1, 2024. At the outset, the petitioners Anjale Patel and Chhaya Mishra have argued that the titles of the current laws are not accurate. The petition stated that as per the interpretation of Statutes, the titles of these proposed bills do not clearly reflect the statutes and their motive. Instead, the current names of the Acts are ambiguous. Apart from this, the petitioners contended that there were discrepancies in the Acts. Regarding BNS, it is stated that it retains most offences from the IPC. Further, BNS defines petty organised crime as an offence. This includes vehicle theft, pickpocketing, selling public examination question papers, and other forms of organized crimes committed by gangs. To be considered as such, these crimes must (i) cause a general feeling of insecurity among citizens and (ii) be committed by organized criminal groups or gangs, including mobile organised crime groups. However, the term "general feelings of insecurity" is not clearly defined. Additionally, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not define terms such as 'gang,' 'anchor points,' and 'mobile organized crime groups.' Stressing on one of the major issues in the BNSS, it argued that the same allows up to 15 days of police custody, which can be authorized in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the 60 or 90-day period of judicial custody. This provision may lead to the denial of bail for the entire period if the police have not exhausted the 15 days of custody. The petition cited the recent Supreme Court case of V. Senthil Balaji v.State, in which the Court referred the question to a larger bench. The issue under consideration is "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." “The Bill amends the provisions related to detention, police custody and use of handcuffs, which will present issues.” The petitioners stated that the Bills were passed without any proper parliamentary debate as most MPs were under suspension. Thus, such action has led to no debate on the elements of the Bills with no challenges. Notably, when the relevant Bills were passed in Lok Sabha on December 20, 141 opposition MPs (from both houses) stood suspended. The petition also raised attention to an occasion when former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had raised a concern in 2021 regarding the enactment of laws without proper Parliamentary debates. “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.” Lastly, raising its concerns regarding BSA, it said that while it provides for the admissibility of electronic records, it lacks safeguards to prevent tampering and contamination of these records during the investigation process. “Major issues with Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are that The Supreme Court has recognised 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).” Potential Impact on lawyersIt added that the introduction of new criminal bills can potentially impact lawyers in various ways, posing a range of challenges.Increased Workload: New criminal bills may lead to a surge in legal cases, thereby increasing the workload for lawyers. This can lead to stretched resources and potential challenges in providing timely and effective legal representation.Complexity and Ambiguity: The introduction of new criminal bills may bring about complex legal provisions, ambiguous language, or intricate procedural requirements. Lawyers may face challenges in interpreting and navigating these complexities, potentially leading to delays and legal uncertainties. Continuing Legal Education: Lawyers may need to invest additional time and resources to stay abreast of the new criminal laws,...

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Expert Committee To Assess New Criminal Laws, Says They Create Confusion & Increase Burden Of Lawyers

Gyanvi Khanna

The petitioners argued that the new laws do not have much substantive changes from the previous laws except changes in names and sequence of sections.

Tags