The Supreme Court today declined to consider two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions that questioned the legitimacy of the three new criminal laws recently enacted to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act.

A Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan criticized the drafting of both petitions and advised the petitioners to conduct more thorough research if they wish to resubmit their challenge.

"This is a serious issue. What kind of petitions are both of these? ... Please draft it well. This is a serious issue. We cannot enter the domain of Parliament ... Please conduct thorough research on the issues you are raising. You are challenging the constitutional vires of the new laws," Justice Kant remarked.

The Court ultimately permitted the parties to withdraw their pleas, with the option to refile them in the future.

"We allow the petitions to be withdrawn with a liberty to file a comprehensive petition on the said issue," the Court said.

The Court was examining two petitions challenging the new criminal laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC; the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which replaced the previous Evidence Act.

One petition was filed by Delhi residents Anjale Patel and Chhaya, while the second was submitted by Vinod Kumar Boinapally, a leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

The first petition requested the formation of an expert committee to evaluate the viability of the three new criminal laws. It criticized the titles of the laws as ambiguous and misleading, arguing that they did not accurately reflect the statutes or their purposes. This plea also raised concerns about how the new laws might affect lawyers, including potential increases in workload, complexity, and the need for ongoing legal education.

In the second petition, BRS leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally argued that the new laws were essentially “old wine in a new bottle” and would negatively impact law and order as well as individual rights. He claimed that the enactment process had excluded consultation with key stakeholders, states, and union territories.

Boinapally also contested specific provisions of the new laws, suggesting that they were unconstitutional and should be struck down. These contested provisions included Sections 15, 43(3), 94, 96, 107, 185, 187, 349, and 479 of the BNSS; Sections 113 and 152 of the BNS; and Section 23 of the BSA.