Today, the Madras High Court commented that although the intent behind the three new criminal laws may have been positive, their naming has led to significant confusion.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthil Kumar also noted that while they asked for feedback from stakeholders and the public before passing the laws, it seemed like a formality and their opinions weren’t truly considered.

"The object might be good but it has created chaos. Objections and opinions were called for but it was only a formality. None of them were implemented," it said.

The Court made these observations while hearing several Public Interest Litigation petitions challenging the three criminal laws.

"Normally though, at least in principle, if the government wants to make an amendment to even a simple legislation, it is first sent to the Law Commission for its opinion," the Court said during the hearing.

The Court also questioned the names of the three criminal laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.'

The petition heard today was filed by RS Bharathi, the organizing secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

As per the plea, the new criminal laws are "concerted design to weaponize the law by criminalizing democratic and peaceful acts of expressing dissent and opposition to state policies, systematically dismantle the most fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, such as the right to free and fair trial, and centralize powers of the police and provide impunity and ensure immunity of the police and state officials."

After a brief hearing today, the Court said it would review the matter in detail and scheduled Bharathi's petition along with other related PILs challenging the criminal laws. It granted the Union of India four weeks to file a counter to the petitions. Previously, the Court had declined to stay the three new laws in response to a PIL challenging the Sanskrit/Hindi names given to them.