New criminal laws: Meaningful deliberation were needed, says Fmr Law Minister; some positive aspects there, says SC Advocate

The government had declared that it needs to create a new legal architecture as far as the criminal laws in the country were concerned. Governments do that from time to time. But the way the laws have been hushed, rushed into parliament and the way the implementation is sought to be rushed through is not desirable in a democracy. These were not adequately discussed in the parliamentary committees, nor was there an extensive discussion about these bills in the House, nor were all the stakeholders consulted. The opposition has been demanding that this change in the legal architecture of criminal laws should be preceded by meaningful deliberations between all stakeholders. That appears not to have been done and I think it is only in the fitness of things that when you change the legal architecture of criminal laws in the country which affect all citizens, there should be a wide consensus around those laws based upon informed discussion. It is only proper that this grievance of the opposition should be addressed by the ruling party and it would serve the cause of effective legislation if the laws that are now sought to be introduced in the country have strong backing and political consensus. There's reason why a public interest petition has been filed in the Supreme Court. An earlier petition was dismissed. I believe there's another petition that is now pending. And many lawyers have also asked for debate. And the reason for that is what I just said that there should be an informed discussion, meaningful deliberations to know whether these laws are well designed, whether in the implementation of these laws basic human rights will not be affected, whether the principles of criminal jurisprudence will not get adversely impacted. We have had a system of laws in the country for several decades now, more than 100 years, and they have broadly, broadly, not entirely, but broadly stood the test of time. If you are to replace those laws, there should be a meaningful discussion. Professor Ranveer Singh K Chairman K under a committee form KT with regard to criminal law reforms more National Law School deny K Vice Chancellor K or Usman bohat robosis laki kaithi mujhe lagtai ke is nai Kanu Mein Jo Supreme Court Ki bohat SE nirne hai us Ki Jo nijor nikolti hai usko in kanuno main dala Gaya plus yeh kaha adha ke bhai Mara justice system bohat delayed to delay ko kaise meet kya Jai ho Ek bahadi Bharti judgments me Supreme Court neka hai koi bhi judge iti dekhta koi judgment reserve nikarson to yeh Ek bhati ke nirne bho chaldi Anna chahiye jaan nirne Mein to teen char mahine lag chahte hai. AAP NE pandhra din Pele kya baat kahi thi O aapko panda din baat exactly yaad nahin ku Agar kisi NE PES suni hai Pandora denya Ek mahina pehle or O judgment pronounce nahi kare to Agar kuche main Ek saal ke paar judgment pronounce karenge to unki yadash Chai unke paas notes mehu Chai written submissions behu O nahi hood or yeh hum log as lawyers karte hai is main hum bhat PE ET Ras karte hai ke Nitin nahi aya to Ek baat E Ki anachi.