Murky Haste

The three bills introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 11, the last day of the monsoon session, seeking to replace the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act have raised eyebrows over the manner they were tabled in the House.

The bills have been named The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bills, 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah who introduced the bill said the new code would overhaul the judicial system by making 313 amendments in the IPC and CrPC, would decongest jails, define terrorism and recognize mob lynching as new offence and fix accountability of cops for arrests.

Women officers would be provided for recording statement of victims of sexual offences. It is also claimed that they will result in time-bound trials, introduce summary trials for petty crimes, bring in community service as a form of punishment and provide protection to witnesses.

The stated objectives are indeed laudable and promise long-awaited reforms in the two important codes that deal with the widest array of social crimes.

Given their wide application, the bills needed widest possible consultation and would need to be placed in the public domain for a longer period. But the manner in which they were tabled and have been rushed through the short monsoon session smacks of secrecy and lack of transparency.

Though Mr. Shah has claimed that while formulating the bills, opinion was sought from all the judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of all High Courts, law schools, judicial academies, chief ministers and governors of all states and received views from 18 states, the Supreme Court, 16 High Courts, five judicial academies, 22 law universities, 142 members of Parliament, 270 MLAs and the public, the government has not put any of these inputs or opinions in the public domain.

The Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws (CRCL) on May 4, 2020 to formulate the three bills. The members of the CRCL were frequently changed and the record of proceedings has been made public.

Some members raised objections to key roles played by solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta and the additional solicitor general of India Suryaprakash V. Raju in framing of the three bills, although they were not the members of the CRCL.

Their ideological proximity to the establishment also provides a dash of murkiness to the entire process. Mr. Raju who practiced in the Gujarat High Court had defended Mr. Shah in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case.

Even more surprisingly, several applications filed pertaining to the functioning of the CRCL under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) were not entertained by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The three bills have now been referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. But curiously, in further show of hastiness, the Standing Committee had fixed a 3-day (between August 24 and 27) briefing of the members by Union home secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla.

Reforms in criminal justice system have been long overdue and changes are being made in two codes that have been the fulcrum of the entire criminal legal system.

It is imperative that the the bills having far reaching implications should be debated thoroughly by drawing widest possible talent within the country.

Hustling them though the house in the race to pass before the end of the current Lok Sabha’s term would do them more harm than benefit.