On Monday (May 20), the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition that challenged the recent enactment of new criminal laws by Parliament. These laws aim to replace the Indian Penal Code 1860, Indian Evidence Act 1872, and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Following the Court's indication of reluctance to address the petition, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, opted to withdraw it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed upon withdrawal.

He contested the replacement of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Indian Evidence Act (IEA), and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which are set to come into effect on July 1, 2024.

As soon as the case was brought before the vacation bench, consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, Tiwari was informed that the matter was being dismissed. Despite Tiwari's request for permission to submit a representation to the government outlining his concerns, the bench refused. Justice Trivedi informed Tiwari that had he argued the case, the petition would have been dismissed with costs.

"The petition is drafted in a casual manner," Justice Mithal observed. "The law has not come into force," Justice Trivedi added.

In February, a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud dismissed a similar petition, noting that the laws had not yet come into effect. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed on January 3, 2024, following President Droupadi Murmu's assent to the new criminal laws on December 25, 2023.

The laws in question, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, are slated to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a halt to the implementation of the three new criminal laws. Additionally, the PIL requested the immediate formation of an expert committee, chaired by a former Supreme Court judge, to assess the feasibility of these laws.

The PIL asserts that there were irregularities and discrepancies in the enactment of the three laws. It highlights that the relevant Bills were passed without adequate parliamentary debate, particularly at a time when a significant number of MPs were under suspension. Notably, during the passage of the relevant Bills in the Lok Sabha on December 20, 141 opposition MPs from both houses were suspended.

Advocate Tiwari draws attention to an instance in 2021 when former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressed concerns regarding the enactment of laws without proper parliamentary debates.

"Parliamentary debate is a fundamental part of democratic lawmaking...Debates and discussions are helpful to make necessary adjustments and amendments to a bill so that it can effectively fulfill its purpose. These can be helpful in Courts while interpreting laws", says the plea.

Highlighting issues of resource constraints and impact of the changed position on legal aid/pro bono work, the plea adds that, “lawyers may face challenges in interpreting and navigating these complexities, potentially leading to delays and legal uncertainties”.

The plea further asserts that the alterations introduced by the new criminal laws are draconian and aim to establish a police state in practice. Additionally, it contends that these laws violate the fundamental rights of the people of India.