The bench of justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition, citing its casual filing and the fact that the laws have not yet come into effect. The court informed Tiwari that he would have been subject to monetary costs had he chosen to argue his plea. Consequently, Tiwari withdrew the petition, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn
NEW DELHI: Today (20 May): The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a petition challenging the validity of three new criminal laws. The petitioner argued that these laws perpetuate colonial-era practices and fail to safeguard the rights of citizens.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court to hear Plea Challenging Newly Passed Criminal Legislation on Monday
A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed that the petition was filed in a “very casual and cavalier manner” and pointed out that the laws in question were yet to be implemented.
“We are dismissing it… the laws have not been implemented to date. The petition has been filed in a very casual manner,” the bench informed advocate Vishal Tiwari, who argued for his petition in person.
The Supreme Court of India rejected a petition that questioned the legality of three new criminal laws, namely Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
The petitioner, advocate Vishal Tiwari, argued that these laws maintain a “police state” reminiscent of colonial times and do not adequately protect citizens’ rights. Tiwari further contended that the laws were passed without proper parliamentary debate and lacked provisions to ensure fair trials and protect against police overreach.
The three new laws are set to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act and are scheduled to be implemented on July 1. These laws aim to modernize India’s justice system and prioritize justice over punishment.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasized that the government intends to deliver justice within three years and has incorporated timelines in 35 sections of the legislation. Additionally, the new laws address crimes against women and children and define terrorism for the first time.
READ ALSO: Parliamentary Committee Proposes Key Amendments in New Criminal Law Bill
In an interview with the media on Monday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasized that the new criminal laws prioritize justice over punishment.
“The focus is on justice that aligns with Indian legal philosophy. Additionally, the goal is to establish the world’s most modern justice system, adaptable to any technological advancements over the next 50 years,” he stated.
Shah mentioned that the government aims to deliver justice within three years, incorporating timelines in 35 sections of the legislation.
“We have intensified our focus on crimes against women and children by introducing a new chapter on this in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. We have also addressed new crimes, such as snatching. For the first time, terrorism has been defined in the law,” he added.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023, allows for a maximum of 15 days of police custody, which can be granted incrementally within the initial 40 or 60 days of the 60 or 90-day period of judicial custody.
Addressing this provision, Tiwari expressed concern: “This could result in bail being denied for the entire duration if the police have not utilized the full 15 days of custody.”
This differs from laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1976, where police custody is restricted to the first 30 days, the plea noted.
“The Supreme Court has emphasized that, as a general rule, police custody should be obtained within the initial 15 days of remand. Extending it for 40 or 60 days should only be exceptional,” it emphasized.
Tiwari also referenced the provision for handcuffing during the arrest of offenders of serious crimes or habitual offenders who have escaped custody.
“The Supreme Court has ruled that using handcuffs is inhumane, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The plea highlighted the lack of safeguards in the power to seize property from the proceeds of crime, as compared to those provided in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Tiwari objected to the continuance of the trial and the delivery of a judgment if the accused’s attendance couldn’t be secured.
“While expediting trials to reduce delays is crucial, it shouldn’t compromise the fairness of the trial and the rights of the accused,” he stressed.
The petitioner raised concerns about various aspects of the laws, including ambiguous titles, inadequate safeguards for property attachment, and the admissibility of electronic evidence without proper tampering safeguards.
Tiwari sought a stay on the implementation of these laws and proposed the formation of an expert committee comprising legal experts to assess their viability and recommend necessary adjustments.
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the implementation of the new criminal laws. While the court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, it does not preclude future challenges to the laws once they come into effect. It remains to be seen how these laws will impact the Indian justice system and whether they will adequately protect citizens’ rights as envisioned by the government.
Read Previous Reports on New Criminal Laws
