The Madras High Court, in a session on Friday, expressed strong reservations about the three new criminal laws introduced by the Central government, stating that while the laws might have been crafted with good intentions, they have ultimately led to confusion. The court observed that the names of the laws have caused chaos among the public, despite efforts to gather opinions from stakeholders before their enactment. The court’s critical remarks were reported by Bar and Bench.
Justices SS Sundar and N Senthil Kumar made these observations during a hearing on multiple Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions that challenge the validity and implementation of the new laws. The bench questioned the process through which objections and opinions were solicited from the public and stakeholders, stating that while the gesture of seeking public input may have seemed democratic, the exercise appeared to be a mere formality.
“The objective 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,” the bench remarked during the proceedings.
Concerns over the renaming of laws
The bench took particular issue with the renaming of the three key criminal laws, questioning the necessity of such a move. The three laws in question are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which substitutes the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC); and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which supersedes the Indian Evidence Act. The court expressed concern that the new names could confuse the public, despite the substance of the laws largely remaining unchanged.
“In the present case, you [Centre] wanted to make some amendments; what was the need to change the names of the laws? It is only to confuse the public,” the bench said. The judges stressed that such renaming added unnecessary complexity to an already intricate legal system.
The court also raised concerns about the process followed by the Centre before introducing these changes, noting that, traditionally, any significant amendments to existing laws are first referred to the Law Commission for thorough review. “Normally, at least in principle, if the government wants to make an amendment to even a simple legislation, it is first sent to the Law Commission for its opinion,” the court said, indicating that the due diligence process was not fully adhered to.
More Read
Petitions and allegations against the new laws
The PIL that brought the issue before the court was filed by RS Bharathi, the organizing secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a prominent political party in Tamil Nadu. Bharathi’s petition challenges the new criminal laws, arguing that they represent a systematic effort to erode democratic freedoms in the country.
The plea contended that the new laws were part of a “concerted design to weaponize the law by criminalizing democratic and peaceful acts of expressing dissent and opposition to state policies.” The petition also criticized the laws for undermining core principles of criminal jurisprudence, such as the right to a free and fair trial, and centralizing excessive powers in the hands of the police. The petition warned that the new laws could provide immunity to police and state officials, allowing them to operate with impunity.
Court’s next steps
After a brief hearing, the court announced that it would examine the petitions in detail. RS Bharathi’s petition is now scheduled to be heard alongside several other related PILs that challenge various aspects of the new laws. The court has given the Centre four weeks to file a detailed counter-response to the petitions, which will provide the government’s defense and justification for the changes.
The Madras High Court’s critique of the laws has raised important questions about the legislative process and the broader implications of the reforms. As the matter moves forward, the court’s detailed examination will shed more light on whether the new criminal laws truly serve the public interest or if they pose a threat to democratic freedoms in India.
