Petition in Supreme Court seeking stay of 3 new criminal laws
According to the plea, the proposed Bills suffer from many defects and discrepancies.
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court seeking stay on the newly amended criminal laws Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023.
The petition was filed on Wednesday by two Delhi residents Anjale Patel and Chhaya objected to the titles of the three laws calling them ambiguous and not accurate as the names of the three laws do not speak about the statute or its motive.
Demanding stay of the three laws, the petition also alleged “irregularity” in the passage of bills in Parliament in December 2023.
To be sure, the top court had on May 20 refused to entertain a petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari challenging the three laws claiming such a challenge to be premature as the laws are yet to come into operation.
Tiwari was allowed to withdraw the petition.
The present petition also raised challenges to some of the provisions in the new laws as being violative of Supreme Court judgments. It referred to the provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS) allowing police custody of 15 days to be availed in parts or in whole during the initial 40/60 days period of the 60/90 days period of judicial custody permitted under law.
The petition alleged that the issue whether police custody should be restricted to the first 15 days from arrest was laid down by a SC decision in CBI v Anupam J Kulkarni in 1992 which has been referred for reconsideration to a larger bench last year. Further, the petitioners alleged that the new rule on allowing 15 days police custody may lead to denial of bail on the claim by police that they are yet to exhaust the 15-day custody period.
It also challenged the vague definition of “petty organised crime” under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This includes crimes such as vehicle theft, pickpocketing, selling of public examination question papers, or any other form of organised crimes committed by a gang which must cause a general feeling of insecurity amongst citizens.
In this definition, the petition pointed out that the term “general feelings of insecurity” is vague and is not explained and the term ‘gang’ is not defined. The parliamentary standing committee had suggested redrafting this provision.
The petition also objected to the new laws permitting use of handcuffs for a range of cases including economic offences.
“The power to use handcuffs may infringe on the accused’s personal liberty,” the petition said, claiming that past decisions of Supreme Court permit handcuffs as a last resort while Section 43 of BNSS empowers police to handcuff while arresting a habitual or repeat offender, or one who is accused of grave offences, terrorist acts, or economic offences.
Seeking an expert committee to be constituted for identifying the viability of the three laws, the petition said that till such an exercise is done, in the interest of justice the operation and implementation of the three new criminal laws should be stayed.
Read more news like this on HindustanTimes.com