Why Law Commission not consulted on new criminal laws, Madras HC asks Centre
Ordering notice to the Centre over a plea by the DMK, the High Court asked if the new laws were meant to confuse the people
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: Why was the Law Commission not consulted before the criminal laws were amended? Was it to confuse the people, asked the Madras High Court on Friday, ordering notice to the Centre over a plea by the DMK to declare as ultra vires and unconstitutional, the three new criminal laws brought in to replace the earlier ones.
The three laws – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – have come into effect from July 1. They have replaced the Indian Penal Code, The Code of Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act.
A division bench comprising Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthil Kumar before whom the petition filed by DMK organising secretary RS Bharathi came up for hearing, issued notice to the Centre and gave it four weeks to respond.
Senior counsel NR Elango representing the petitioner submitted that the amendment cannot be considered as enacted by Parliament as it was passed only by the ruling government and its allies, without meaningful discussion with the opposition parties.
It seems the exercise was being done only to "Sanskritise" the titles of the Acts without any devotion to revisit the laws, he contended.
He said the naming of the Acts in Hindi/Sanskrit was violative of Article 348 of the Constitution, which mandates, inter alia, that the authoritative texts of all Bills to be introduced in either house of Parliament shall be in English.
In the absence of any substantive changes, mere shuffling of sections was unnecessary. It will only cause a lot of inconvenience and confusion among the advocates and the law enforcement agencies, he added.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan objected to the submission and sought time to file counter.
The bench also observed that the motive behind the amendment may be good, but it will create unnecessary confusion among the advocates and law officers which will delay the judicial process.
DECLARE IT ULTRA VIRES: DMK HARD TALK
~ Passed by the Parliament without any meaningful discussion
~ Enactments involved only the ruling party and its allies
~ No substantive changes; shuffling of sections unnecessary
~ Result: Confusion regarding the interpretation of provisions
~ Exercise is only done to 'Sanskritise' the titles of the Act
