Retd. Justice S Muralidhar “Let’s not be swayed by claims that these three new criminal laws have brought about dramatic change and decolonized the legal system.
NEW DELHI: On Sunday (28th April): Senior Advocate and former Delhi and Orissa High Court judge Justice Dr. S Muralidhar remarked that the three recently enacted criminal laws have not made significant changes or decolonized the legal framework.
READ ALSO: Retired Justice S Muralidhar: Larger Bench for SC to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
He highlighted that, despite the introduction of three new criminal laws, there have been no significant changes or decolonization of the law.
“Let’s not be swayed by claims that these three new criminal laws have brought about dramatic change and decolonized the legal system.
None of that holds true,” cautioned Dr. Muralidhar during his lecture on ‘Guilty Till Proved Innocent: Dark Areas of Criminal Jurisprudence,’ part of the Rakesh Endowment Lecture series for Justice and Equity hosted by the Rakesh Law Foundation & Roja Muthiah Research Library in Chennai.
Justice Muralidhar emphasized that certain aspects of criminal law have remained unchanged even after 76 years of independence. He pointed out that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, which is still utilized to ban organizations, is a prime example of the outdated provisions that persist. He cautioned against the belief that the recent criminal laws bring about dramatic changes or decolonization of the legal system, stating that such claims are unsubstantiated.
“The new laws fail to address critical issues like encounters, disappearances, mass crimes, and crimes against humanity, where human rights violations occur with impunity in our country. It’s not limited to the IPC; it extends to a plethora of special and local laws,” remarked Dr. Muralidhar.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Elevates 56 Lawyers to Senior Advocates, Including 11 Women
Justice Muralidhar discussed the Defense of India Act of 1915, which serves as the foundation for post-independence preventive detention laws. He explained that the bail provisions within this statute have influenced subsequent laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the Companies Act. These provisions establish a twin test for granting bail.
Regarding Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which permits preventive detention, Dr. Muralidhar asserted that such statutes are intended to be temporary measures in emergency situations. However, he noted that it has become a legislative habit to govern through preventive detention, and the judiciary has developed a habit of not interfering with such detentions. He quoted Prof. Upendra Baxi to support this claim.
Justice Muralidhar highlighted that the new criminal laws fail to address several crucial issues mentioned in the Law Commission’s 277th report on compensation for those wrongfully prosecuted. He cited the retention of Section 358 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides a mere Rs 1,000 as compensation for wrongful arrest, in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
“As a lawyer, it’s imperative not to blindly accept labels such as ‘criminal’ or ‘terrorist.’ Question and seek satisfaction with the evidence presented,” emphasized Dr. Muralidhar. He stressed the importance of upholding the accused’s rights, including the right to silence and against self-incrimination.
“Present the case before the Court without twisting facts or evidence. Defend the individual to the best of your ability, leaving the determination of guilt to the Courts,” he urged, likening the lawyer’s duty to a doctor’s obligation to treat patients regardless of their background.
READ ALSO: Justice (Retired) S Murlidhar: Judges do make political choices
Similarly, Section 211, dealing with the framing of false cases, offers minimal compensation and has been retained in the new law. He stressed that the new laws do not tackle human rights violations, including encounters, disappearances, mass crimes, and crimes against humanity, which continue to occur with impunity.
Justice Muralidhar encouraged aspiring criminal lawyers to question assumptions made about individuals labeled as criminals or terrorists. He urged them to exercise their professional duty to defend their clients diligently and uphold their rights, including the right to silence and the right against self-incrimination. He emphasized that lawyers should present their clients’ cases truthfully and leave the determination of guilt to the courts.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
