Today(17th Sept),The Supreme Court of India rejected PILs challenging the new criminal laws that replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Indian Evidence Act, citing deficiencies in the petitions’ drafting. Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan advised the petitioners to undertake more detailed research if they wish to address their concerns in court again.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today(17th Sept), declined to entertain two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the constitutional validity of the new criminal laws that replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act. The new laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed dissatisfaction with the way the petitions were drafted and advised the petitioners to perform more comprehensive research if they wished to bring their concerns to the court again.
The bench took issue with the manner in which the petitions had been framed, remarking that the gravity of the issues raised demanded a more rigorous and precise approach.
“This is a serious issue. What kind of petitions are both of these? … Please draft it well. This is a serious issue. We cannot enter the domain of Parliament … Please conduct thorough research on the issues you are raising. You are challenging the constitutional vires of the new laws,”
-Justice Surya Kant remarked, emphasizing the need for greater diligence in addressing the matter.
The court did, however, grant the petitioners the liberty to withdraw their petitions and refile them with a more detailed and structured approach.
“We permit the withdrawal of the petitions with the option to file a more comprehensive petition on the matter.”
– the bench noted, providing an opportunity for the petitioners to rectify their submissions.
The two petitions in question sought to challenge the newly enacted criminal laws which were designed to replace the colonial-era IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act. The first petition was filed by two Delhi residents, Anjale Patel and Chhaya, while the second was brought forth by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally. Each of these petitions raised distinct concerns about the impact and legality of the new laws.
The first plea raised by Anjale Patel and Chhaya sought directions for the formation of an expert committee to assess the viability and impact of the new criminal laws. Among the key issues raised, this petition expressed concern over the titles of the three laws, calling them ambiguous and stating that they failed to accurately convey the purpose or intention behind the legislation.
The petitioners argued that the introduction of these new criminal statutes would place undue pressure on legal practitioners, particularly by increasing their workload and adding layers of complexity. Furthermore, the plea highlighted the need for continuous legal education to equip lawyers with the necessary understanding of the new laws.
In the second petition, filed by BRS leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally, the primary contention was that the new laws were merely a rebranding of the old legal framework and described the changes as “old wine in a new bottle.” The petition expressed concern that these reforms would have far-reaching implications for law and order, as well as for the life and liberty of Indian citizens.
Boinapally further argued that the process of enacting these new laws had bypassed essential consultations with key stakeholders, including states and union territories. According to the petitioner, this lack of consultation rendered certain provisions of the new laws unconstitutional and void. Specifically, he raised objections to Sections 15, 43(3), 94, 96, 107, 185, 187, 349, and 479 of the BNSS, Sections 113 and 152 of the BNS, and Section 23 of the BSA, demanding that these provisions be struck down.
The rejection of these PILs marks not the first instance where petitions challenging the new criminal laws have failed to pass judicial scrutiny. On May 20, a different bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had similarly refused to entertain a plea that questioned the validity of the new legal framework. At that time, the court had noted that since the laws had not yet come into force, any challenge was premature.
“Laws are not in force. How can you file such pleas drafted in a casual manner?”
– the bench had remarked to petitioner Vishal Tiwari, criticizing the laxity of the filing. Consequently, Tiwari’s PIL was withdrawn.
Similarly, back in February, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed a similar plea. The continuous dismissals of these petitions reflect the judiciary’s insistence on well-researched and thoroughly considered challenges, especially when the constitutional validity of legislation is at stake.
The new criminal laws, officially coming into force on July 1, represent a major shift in India’s criminal justice system. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code, the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS), which takes over from the CrPC, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which succeeds the Evidence Act, was introduced as part of a long-awaited overhaul aimed at making the criminal justice system more efficient, streamlined, and aligned with contemporary legal needs.
