On July 15, the Union Home Ministry agreed to suspend provisions in newly passed criminal laws requiring evidence to be recorded via video conferencing from police stations, following protests from Delhi’s bar associations. The legal community in Delhi plans to submit a representation to the government, expressing concerns about all three criminal laws enacted this year.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On July 15, the Union Home Ministry agreed to stay the provisions in the recently passed criminal laws that mandated the recording of evidence via video conferencing from police stations. This decision came in response to widespread protests by various bar associations in Delhi. The city’s legal community is preparing to submit a representation to the government, highlighting concerns regarding all three criminal laws enacted this year.
Why are the Lawyers Protesting?
The legal fraternity, under the banner of the Co-ordination Committee of all District Bar Associations, Delhi (CDCBAD), is opposing three major laws: the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). These laws have replaced the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, respectively, establishing a revamped legal framework for criminal procedures, penal codes, and evidence in India.
Concerns Over Digital Evidence Provisions
The BNSS, for example, includes provisions for the handling of digital evidence, such as “the summoning of digital evidence,” which encompasses electronic communications like messages, call recordings, and emails, as well as electronic communication devices such as mobile phones, laptops, and cameras. Legal experts have expressed concerns over the potential impact of these new laws on privacy, free speech, and the right against self-incrimination since they were first introduced as Bills in Parliament last year.
ALSO READ: Cal HC Lawyers Boycott Court Hearings in Protest Against Three New Criminal Laws
Protest and Reaction
Upon the enactment of these laws on July 1, 2024, the CDCBAD called for a complete suspension of judicial work by all bar association members.
This was described as-
“an act of protest against the amendment in the CrPC that mandates recording evidence of the complainant and witnesses via video conferencing from the respective police station.”
In a press release, CDCBAD members voiced their worries, stating that the provisions could “prejudice the right of the accused and affect the course of cross-examination.” They argued that having complainants and witnesses give evidence via video conferencing from police stations could lead to potential bias and undermine the fairness of the judicial process.
The Ministry’s Decision
Reacting to the protests, the Union Home Ministry’s decision to stay these provisions indicates a willingness to address the concerns raised by the legal community. This move is seen as a temporary measure while further consultations and discussions take place. The decision underscores the importance of balancing technological advancements in the legal process with the protection of fundamental legal rights.
The city’s legal community, backed by CDCBAD, is preparing to submit a detailed representation to the government. This document will highlight broader issues related to the BNSS, BNS, and BSA, ensuring that the legal framework aligns with principles of justice and fairness without compromising individual rights.
Members of the Coordination Committee of Delhi Bar Associations (CDCBAD) have voiced significant concerns regarding the extensive powers granted to police under three newly proposed laws. In a move to highlight these issues, approximately 1.75 lakh lawyers, excluding those practicing in the High Court and the Supreme Court, abstained from work on Monday.
This demonstration aimed to draw attention to the potential implications of these laws. Following the protest, representatives from the association engaged in discussions with officials from the Ministry, according to Raman Sharma, Honorary Secretary of the Shahdara Bar Association.
“We met with the Union Home Secretary to discuss the implications of the new laws on the public. The government agreed to suspend the police provisions [mentioned earlier]. We also requested them to delay the implementation of the three new criminal laws and agreed to submit a representation outlining all our concerns to the government.”
-said Sharma, adding that the drafting of the representation will take at least a month.
He also said that Home Minister Amit Shah may attend the next meeting.
The CDCBAD members are particularly worried about the potential for abuse of power by the police under these new laws. They believe that the laws, if implemented without thorough consideration and consultation, could lead to significant violations of civil liberties. Their primary concern is the “unlimited power given to the police” which they fear could be misused, leading to unjust treatment of individuals and communities.
The day-long strike by the lawyers was not just a protest but also a strategic move to ensure that their voices are heard by the government. By abstaining from work, these legal professionals aimed to demonstrate the seriousness of their concerns and the potential impact of these laws on the justice system. The massive turnout for the strike underscored the unity and resolve within the legal community to address these issues head-on.
ALSO READ: Delhi Lawyers to Protest & Boycott Judicial Work on July 15 Against New Criminal Laws
In the meeting with the Union Home Secretary, the representatives of the bar associations “discussed extensively the impact of the new laws on the public.” They emphasized the need for the government to consider the broader implications of these laws and the potential for widespread public outcry and resistance. The government’s agreement to “put a stay on the police provisions” was seen as a significant but initial victory for the lawyers. However, the lawyers stressed that this was only a temporary measure and that a more permanent solution needed to be found.
Raman Sharma highlighted that the association had also requested the government “not to rush with the implementation of the three new criminal laws.” This request was rooted in the belief that hasty implementation could lead to unforeseen consequences and a breakdown of trust between the public and the legal system.
The lawyers’ associations have committed to “send a representation to the government flagging all our concerns,” a process that Sharma indicated would take at least a month to draft comprehensively.
The prospect of Home Minister Amit Shah attending the next meeting adds a layer of importance to the ongoing dialogue. His involvement would signify the government’s recognition of the gravity of the concerns raised by the legal community. The lawyers hope that with his participation, there will be a more meaningful and productive discussion on how to address their concerns effectively.
