Plea Filed in Supreme Court Challenges Provisions in New Criminal Laws

Subscribe to Our WhatsApp Channel

Join Our Telegram Channel

December 8, New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has received a petition challenging the legality of several of the newly passed Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023's provisions. The case was filed by attorney Vishal Tiwari, who claims that these clauses infringe upon the basic rights protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
The petitioner argues that clauses in the challenged portions, which were approved by the Lok Sabha on December 20, 2023, might result in law enforcement authorities abusing their authority. The Supreme Court should rule that Sections 187(2), 187(3), 43(3), 173(3), and 85 of the BNSS are unconstitutional, according to advocate Tiwari. 

Representive Image

Disputed Clauses 

1. Sections 187(2) and 187(3): These provisions deal with the detention of suspects while they are being investigated. The petitioner contends that these clauses might violate individual liberty by allowing for arbitrary and protracted detentions. 
2. Section 43(3): During an arrest or court appearance, this section permits the use of handcuffs on repeat or habitual offenders. According to the petitioner, this clause compromises people's dignity and may encourage discriminatory behaviour. 
3. Section 173(3): This requires investigating officers to carry out a preliminary investigation within a maximum of 14 days prior to filing a formal complaint. According to the petitioner, this delays the administration of justice. 
4. Provision 85: The contentious Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which has drawn criticism for suspected abuse, is mirrored in this provision. The petitioner argues that the new law still faces societal and legal obstacles and has not undergone any significant changes. 

Issues the Petitioner Raised 

The plea highlights how these clauses and the new laws' general framework encourage India to turn into a police state. Advocate Tiwari emphasised the absence of protections against arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention durations, and police brutality, all of which he claims may lead to human rights abuses. "It is a harsh measure that permits police torture to extend police custody from 15 days to 90 days," the plea claims. 
The Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which required the prompt filing of FIRs for crimes that are cognisable, is also brought up in the case. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to issue an order guaranteeing adherence to this historic ruling. 

Consequences of the Novel Criminal Laws 

Together with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSS), the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 was passed as part of a larger revision of colonial-era legislation. The Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 are all intended to be replaced by these statutes. 
Critics, like the petitioner, contend that these laws increase police power at the expense of people' liberties, while supporters claim that they modernise India's legal system. Concerns over the lack of thorough discussion and examination are further heightened by the petitioner's observation that opposition members were not present for the Lok Sabha voice vote. 

Observations of the Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court's ruling in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana earlier this year is cited in the petition. In particular, Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS mimic Section 498A IPC, and the Court has directed the government to re-examine these sections. In spite of this, these clauses have been kept in the current statutes with little modification, which raises concerns about their usefulness and necessity. 

Greater Consequences 

According to the petitioner, the new laws don't adequately address custodial fatalities and police misconduct. Additionally, previous Supreme Court rulings—particularly the seminal Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case—have been ineffectual due to the repeal of Section 41A of the CrPC, which required the issue of a notice to appear before the police for specific offences. 
These modifications are against the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution as well as the basic structural theory. The petition contends that the new regulations are even more backward than the harsh laws of the British era. 

What's Up Next 

The Supreme Court's ruling on this petition will determine how these new criminal provisions are interpreted and applied. The plea serves as a reminder of the fine line that must be drawn between enabling law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights as the discussion goes on. 
It is anticipated that the case would have a significant impact on India's criminal justice system and its conformity to the liberty, equality, and justice tenets of the constitution.