On Friday(19th July),the Madras High Court criticized the Centre for not consulting the Law Commission before introducing three new criminal laws to replace the IPC, CrPC, and Indian Evidence Act. This came as the court admitted a writ petition by DMK’s RS Bharathi, challenging the constitutionality of the new laws.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday(19th July), criticized the Centre for not consulting the law commission before introducing three new sets of criminal laws to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act. This observation was made while admitting a writ petition filed by DMK organizing secretary RS Bharathi, who seeks to have these new laws declared ‘unconstitutional’.
“The Law Commission exists precisely for this purpose: to advise the government on legal matters,”
-remarked the division bench comprising Justice S S Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar.
The bench expressed surprise over the Centre’s decision to replace the original three laws entirely, noting that any desired changes could have been incorporated through amendments to the existing Acts.
The newly introduced laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – may lead to confusion and require special interpretation, potentially delaying justice delivery, the bench highlighted.
“The intention behind the amendments might be good, but we are concerned about the potential delay they could cause.”
-the bench said, emphasizing the practical implications of implementing these new laws.
ALSO READ: DMK Leader R.S. Bharathi Challenges Three New Criminal Laws in Madras High Court
Senior advocate N R Elango, representing Bharathi, argued that Parliament introduced and passed these new laws without engaging in any meaningful discussion.
“These laws defy the legitimate expectation of citizens that legislation affecting their daily lives, whether as victims or accused, would be enacted with an open mind and following extensive discussion.”
-he stated.
Elango further contended that the new laws do not bring any substantial changes but merely reshuffle the existing sections. This reshuffling, according to him, is unnecessary and will cause significant inconvenience and confusion regarding their interpretation.
“Rearranging the sections would complicate matters for judges, advocates, law enforcement agencies, and the public, making it difficult to correlate new provisions with the old ones to find precedents.”
-Elango elaborated.
Following the Centre’s counsel’s request for time to respond to the pleas, the bench adjourned the hearing by four weeks. The High Court also decided to tag Bharathi’s petition with other similar pleas challenging the new criminal laws, indicating that a comprehensive examination of the issue will be undertaken.
FOLLOW US ON X FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
