Supreme Court allows 2 petitions against new criminal laws to be withdrawn

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed withdrawal of two petitions that sought a stay of the three new criminal laws, observing that petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a law should be carefully drafted.
“You need to be very careful as you are challenging the constitutional vires of a provision,” a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan told the petitioners. “This is such a serious issue and see the grounds you have taken. Do some homework to make out a case by illustrating the consequences of these provisions,” the bench said, allowing the petitioners to approach the court again with comprehensive petitions.
The court was hearing two petitions challenging the three laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – on the ground that its provisions were ambiguous and the names of the three laws did not speak about the statute or its motive.
Allowing the petitions to be withdrawn, the order passed by the court said: “The petitioner in both the cases is seeking to withdraw the petitions. The same is allowed with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition on the same cause of action.”
Two Delhi residents, Anjale Patel and Chhaya, filed one of the two petitions while the other was filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BNS) leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally.
Senior advocate S Nagamuthu, who appeared for the BRS leader, initially asked if he could add additional grounds to the petition instead of withdrawing it. However, the court advised him to incorporate the new points in a fresh petition.
The petitioners, who also sought the formation of an expert committee to examine the three laws, said there was an “irregularity” in their passage by Parliament since they were cleared when nearly 100 Opposition MPs were under suspension. and could not contribute to the debate.
“Are we now going to have control over parliamentary proceedings as well,” the bench replied, underlining that if good grounds cannot be raised to challenge the laws, it would be better not to file such a petition.
To be sure, the top court on May 20 refused to entertain a petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari challenging the three laws, reasoning that the challenge was premature since the laws were yet to come into operation. Tiwari was allowed to withdraw his plea. The three laws came into operation on July 1.
Apart from raising questions about several specific provisions of the three laws, the petition filed by the two Delhi residents also questioned the government’s intention to enact them. It argued that the government claimed that the three colonial-era laws reflected the colonial legacy that treated Indians as subjects and gave primacy to punishment.
But this is what the new laws have done, it said. “The main motive of the bills was to de-colonise the Indian laws, but, on the contrary, the same laws are being repeated with no new explanations with additional powers granted to the police to rule people out of fear and depriving (them) the fundamental rights,” it said.
The petition also flagged the new provisions that allow 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 definition of “petty organised crime” under the criminal law and objected to provisions permitting the 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, reasoning that past decisions of Supreme Court permitted handcuffs as a last resort while Section 43 of BNSS empowered police to handcuff while arresting a habitual or repeat offender, or one who is accused of grave offences, terrorist acts, or economic offences.