The Supreme Court Today (Aug 29) asked the Madras High Court to hear petitions against the three new criminal laws quickly. The Court said it will benefit from the High Court’s opinion before deciding on the constitutional validity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Friday requested the Madras High Court to give priority to petitions that challenge the three newly introduced criminal laws — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M Pancholi gave this direction while rejecting a plea filed by the Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which had sought to transfer the case from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
The top court said:
“Having regard to the importance of the issue and that the writ petitions are waiting effective hearing, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to place the matter before a Division bench. We also request for an early/out of turn hearing of the matters,”
-the Court ordered.
It was pointed out before the Supreme Court that the Madras High Court had issued notice in the petitions in September 2024 and listed the matter again in July 2025, but no actual date for hearing was fixed after that.
The counsel also told the court that the problem with these laws begins with their very names, saying that even pronouncing the names is difficult.
The petitioners wanted the case to be shifted to the Supreme Court, arguing that similar petitions are already pending before the top court. However, the Supreme Court refused, saying it values the input of the Madras High Court.
The bench observed:
“This is about constitutional validity. We’ll have the advantage of the opinion of the High Court. This is one of the High Courts where we usually wait for their opinion,”
-the Court remarked.
It is important to note that last year, the Madras High Court had already made strong observations on the naming and enactment of these three laws.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthil Kumar had said that the Sanskrit/Hindi names given to the laws had created unnecessary confusion, even if the government’s intention behind enacting the new laws was good.
The High Court had stated:
“The object might be good but it has created chaos. Objections and opinions were called for but it was only a formality. None of them were implemented,”
-it had said.
These remarks came when the High Court was hearing a series of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions that had questioned the three new criminal laws.
Among the petitioners before the High Court is senior DMK leader and organising secretary RS Bharathi. His petition strongly attacks the new laws, stating that they are a:
“Concerted design to weaponize the law by criminalizing democratic and peaceful acts of expressing dissent and opposition to state policies, systematically dismantle the most fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, such as the right to free and fair trial, and centralize powers of the police and provide impunity and ensure immunity of the police and state officials.”
Earlier, the High Court had also refused to stay the operation of these new criminal laws, even in cases where the challenge was only about their Sanskrit/Hindi names.
Explanatory Table of All Laws & References in the Case
| Law / Case Element | Full Name | Year of Enactment / Reference | Purpose of Law | Key Issue Raised in Case | Court’s Observation / Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) | Replaces Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 | Came into force July 2025 | Defines criminal offences and punishments in India | Petitioners said names are hard to pronounce and laws centralize police powers | “The object might be good but it has created chaos.” – Madras HC |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) | Replaces Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 | Came into force July 2025 | Governs procedures of investigation, arrest, trial, and bail | Alleged violation of fair trial rights and giving police wide powers | “Concerted design to weaponize the law…” – Petitioners |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) | Replaces Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Came into force July 2025 | Deals with admissibility and rules of evidence in courts | Petitioners claim it dismantles fundamental criminal jurisprudence | Same as above |
| Petitions before Madras High Court | Filed by Bar Associations, RS Bharathi (DMK) & others | Notices issued Sept 2024; listed July 2025 | Challenge to constitutional validity and naming of new laws | No final hearing date fixed | “Having regard to the importance of the issue… we request… early/out of turn hearing.” – SC |
| Federation of Bar Associations (TN & Puducherry) | Petitioners before SC | 2025 | Requested transfer of case from HC to SC | Claimed similar cases already pending in SC | Request rejected – SC said HC opinion needed |
| Supreme Court Bench | Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M Pancholi | Aug 2025 | Deciding transfer plea & urgency | Declined transfer, asked HC to expedite hearing | “This is about constitutional validity. We’ll have the advantage of the opinion of the High Court.” |
| Madras High Court Bench | Justice SS Sundar & Justice N Senthil Kumar | 2024–25 | Hearing PILs on new laws | Observed stakeholder consultation was just formality | “Objections and opinions were called for but it was only a formality. None of them were implemented.” |
READ LIVE COVERAGE:
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on New Criminal Laws
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
