A legal dispute has arisen in the Supreme Court challenging the adoption of three recently proposed sets of laws designed to overhaul India's penal codes. The petitioner contends that these laws exhibit numerous flaws and inconsistencies.

On December 21, the Lok Sabha approved three significant legislations: the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bills. President Droupadi Murmu gave her approval to these bills on December 25. These new laws, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Act, are intended to replace the existing Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Indian Evidence Act.

In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a halt to the enforcement of the three recently enacted laws, advocate Vishal Tiwari asserts that these legislations were implemented without proper parliamentary debate, as a significant number of opposition members were under suspension at the time. The PIL urges the court to direct the immediate formation of an expert committee to assess the practicality and implications of the three newly introduced criminal laws.

According to the plea, these new criminal laws are criticized as excessively authoritarian, effectively establishing a police state and violating various fundamental rights of the Indian population. The petitioner draws a parallel to British laws, labeling them colonial and draconian, emphasizing that the newly enacted Indian laws surpass them in severity.

Notably, the plea criticizes a provision that extends the permissible duration of police custody from a maximum of 15 days (as was the case in the British period) to 90 days and beyond, expressing concerns about the potential for police abuse and torture under such an extended timeframe.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces a revised version of the sedition law, encompassing offenses like acts of secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist endeavors, or actions that jeopardize the sovereignty and unity of the nation. According to the newly enacted laws, individuals who purposefully or knowingly, through spoken or written words, signs, visible representation, electronic communication, financial means, or any other means, incite or attempt to incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, encourage separatist sentiments, endanger the sovereignty or unity of India, or commit any such acts, are subject to punishment. The penalties may include life imprisonment or imprisonment extending up to seven years, along with fines.

In comparison, under IPC Section 124A, addressing sedition, the punishment includes life imprisonment or a three-year jail term. The new laws replace the term 'Rajdroh' with 'Deshdroh,' signifying acts against the nation, eliminating the reference to the British crown. Rajdroh, loosely defined as rebellion or acts against the ruler, is now encompassed by Deshdroh, reflecting actions against the nation.

Additionally, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces a definition of terrorism, a term previously absent in the IPC. The new laws also expand the magistrate's authority to impose fines and broaden the scope for declaring an individual as a proclaimed offender.