CHENNAI: Centre should have consulted at least the law commission before rolling out three new sets of criminal laws to replace IPC, CrPC, and the Evidence Act from July 1, Madras HC said Friday while admitting DMK organising secretary R S Bharathi’s writ petition seeking to declare them “unconstitutional”.
“The law commission exists only for such a purpose (to advise govt on legal matters),” the division bench of Justice S S Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar said.
The bench wondered why Centre wanted to replace the original three laws when the changes it wanted could have been incorporated through amendments to the existing Acts. The new laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – might cause confusion and require special interpretation, delaying justice delivery, it said. “The intention of the amendments might be good. But we are concerned with the delay it might cause,” the bench said.
Senior advocate N R Elango, representing Bharathi, contended that Parliament introduced and passed the new laws without any meaningful discussion. “The laws go against the legitimate expectation of the citizens that laws touching upon their everyday life as victims or accused would be passed with an open mind and after an elaborate discussion,” he said.
“The new laws do not bring in any substantial changes but merely shuffle the existing sections, which were unnecessary and would cause great inconvenience and confusion to the people regarding its interpretation. Shuffling the sections would make it very difficult for the judges, advocates, law enforcement agencies, and the public to correlate the new provisions with the old provisions to search for precedents,” Elango said.
After Centre’s counsel sought time to respond to the pleas, the bench adjourned the hearing by four weeks. HC also tagged the petition with other similar pleas challenging the new criminal laws.
“The law commission exists only for such a purpose (to advise govt on legal matters),” the division bench of Justice S S Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar said.
The bench wondered why Centre wanted to replace the original three laws when the changes it wanted could have been incorporated through amendments to the existing Acts. The new laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – might cause confusion and require special interpretation, delaying justice delivery, it said. “The intention of the amendments might be good. But we are concerned with the delay it might cause,” the bench said.
Senior advocate N R Elango, representing Bharathi, contended that Parliament introduced and passed the new laws without any meaningful discussion. “The laws go against the legitimate expectation of the citizens that laws touching upon their everyday life as victims or accused would be passed with an open mind and after an elaborate discussion,” he said.
“The new laws do not bring in any substantial changes but merely shuffle the existing sections, which were unnecessary and would cause great inconvenience and confusion to the people regarding its interpretation. Shuffling the sections would make it very difficult for the judges, advocates, law enforcement agencies, and the public to correlate the new provisions with the old provisions to search for precedents,” Elango said.
After Centre’s counsel sought time to respond to the pleas, the bench adjourned the hearing by four weeks. HC also tagged the petition with other similar pleas challenging the new criminal laws.