Legal Reform or Legal Chaos? PIL Filed Before Supreme Court Seeks to Constitute an Expert Committee

New Delhi, 28th June 2024

(Judicial Quest News Network)

A Petition seeking immediate constitution of an expert committee for assessing and identifying the validity of three new criminal laws has been filed before Supreme Court.The PIL if filed through Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra Senior Advocate Supreme Court.

the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before this Apex Court is not merely an exercise in legal procedure but a pivotal assertion of public rights and responsibilities by a conscientious citizen. The petitioner, standing as a public-spirited individual, challenges the actions of the government that are perceived to cause public harm. The locus standi of the petitioner, validated by precedent such as S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India [AIR 1982 SC 149], underscores that any citizen with sufficient interest can seek judicial recourse against sovereign actions perceived to injure public interest.

It is submitted that the introduction of new criminal laws can potentially impact lawyers in various ways, posing a range of challenges.

The petition in question falls squarely within the ambit of Public Interest Litigation, seeking the intervention of this Writ Court to enforce fundamental rights and address matters of significant public importance. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s view in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhury & Ors [1992 (4) SC 305], emphasizing the role of PILs in safeguarding public interest and holding authorities accountable.

These laws may bring about complex legal Provisions, ambiguous language, or intricate procedural legal requirements. Lawyers may face challenges in interpreting and navigating these comple

At the heart of this litigation lies a critique of recent legislative changes. The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam marks a notable shift in criminal law reform, purportedly aimed at modernizing colonial-era statutes. These bills aim to replace archaic laws with provisions tailored to contemporary challenges, including terrorism, cybercrime, and organized crime.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 introduces significant amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860, incorporating community service as a form of punishment and redefining offences such as sedition and terrorism. However, concerns have been raised regarding its handling of petty organized crime and potential misuse of extended police custody periods under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023.

Critically, these legislative changes have been subject to minimal parliamentary debate, echoing broader concerns highlighted by the former Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana. His remarks underscore the essential role of parliamentary discourse in ensuring clarity and effectiveness in legislation, citing past instances like the controversial farm laws of 2020, which triggered widespread protests and eventual repeal.

Moreover, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, while modernizing evidence laws to include electronic records as primary evidence, raises issues of admissibility and safeguards against tampering—a concern underscored by recent judicial precedents and recommendations from legal experts.

Furthermore, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023 expands police powers and introduces provisions allowing prolonged police custody, challenging established norms and judicial precedents like those in the Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) case.

In essence, while these legislative efforts aim to align India’s legal framework with contemporary realities, they must navigate concerns over public accountability, constitutional validity, and the preservation of civil liberties. The judiciary, in its role as the guardian of fundamental rights, faces the critical task of balancing these interests and ensuring that legislative reforms uphold constitutional principles.

In conclusion, the ongoing PIL challenges not only the specific provisions of these bills but also questions the legislative process that led to their enactment. It calls for a robust judicial review to safeguard public interest, reinforce constitutional values, and ensure that legal reforms serve the welfare of all citizens without compromising individual rights or democratic norms. This litigation, therefore, serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue between legislative intent, judicial oversight, and public accountability in India’s evolving legal landscape.