On Friday(26th July), Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal criticized India’s new criminal laws, calling them “more oppressive” than previous ones. He argued that these laws increase government control over citizens, undermining democracy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Friday(26th July), Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal voiced strong criticism against the new criminal laws in India, describing them as “more oppressive” than their predecessors. Sibal argued that these laws are designed to exert greater control over the citizens, thereby undermining the democratic fabric of the country.
Speaking at the inaugural lecture on Crime and Punishment organized by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Sibal elaborated on his concerns regarding the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These laws, which came into force on July 1, 2024, replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), respectively. Sibal, who is also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, pointed out “certain flaws” in these new provisions, emphasizing a “complete non-application of mind” in how these laws are titled.
Sibal expressed his dismay, stating that the intent behind these laws is to “control citizens of this country, including social media, farmers, students.”
He warned-
“We are transitioning towards a totalitarian regime. The new laws create a framework that enables the ruling party to target and prosecute opposition members, posing a significant threat to democratic principles.”
adding-
“You have rendered the laws significantly more oppressive than their earlier versions.”
ALSO READ: NEW CRIMINAL LAWS OF BHARAT | Assessing the Impacts
Refuting Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s claim that these new laws represent a departure from the colonial era and are more liberal,
Sibal countered-
“It is causing widespread turmoil in the country. The methods of arrest, the reliance on documents, and the overall approach are highly suspicious. This indicates that law enforcement has become a tool for political maneuvering rather than serving justice. These three laws are now being utilized not for justice but to punish individuals regardless of evidence. Similarly, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) reflects this trend, with 70 percent of news coverage focusing on crime and politics.”
Sibal raised a fundamental constitutional question: are these new laws consistent with Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty? He criticized the need for a new set of laws that deviate from constitutional values, suggesting that they steer the country towards a more totalitarian culture.
“A democratic country cannot sustain itself when state operations are based on the misuse of laws to intimidate individuals and entities. This misuse has led to high-net-worth individuals leaving the country, causing economic stagnation and deterring investment. The increasing intrusiveness of laws exacerbates the situation, while the actual concerns of the populace remain unaddressed.”
– Sibal remarked.
Highlighting the misdirection of legislative efforts, Sibal stressed that instead of addressing critical issues like the empowerment of people, child welfare, and youth unemployment, the government is enacting laws that threaten personal freedoms.
He noted-
“The government is now enacting laws that threaten individuals’ lives and compel them to conform not to constitutional values but to the values of those in power.”
Sibal also took issue with the names of the new penal codes. He questioned the appropriateness of the term ‘nyay’ (justice) in the BNS, asserting that a penal code is intended to punish societal offenders, hence it is the State that prosecutes, not individuals. Regarding BNSS, he queried the relevance of ‘suraksha’ (safety and security), pointing out that it is a procedural code.
