May 20th 2024.
The Supreme Court in New Delhi was faced with a public interest litigation on Monday regarding the three new criminal laws that have replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act. However, the court refused to entertain the plea, stating that it was not worthy of consideration. Justice Bela M Trivedi, who was presiding over the vacation bench, made it clear to the petitioner-in-person that the plea was not viable.
Realizing that the court was not inclined to entertain the plea, petitioner advocate Vishal Tiwari requested to withdraw it, with the liberty to make a representation to the government. The bench, which also included Justice Pankaj Mithal, responded by saying, "Do whatever you want... This petition has been filed in a very casual and cavalier manner. If you had argued more, we would have dismissed it with costs. But, since you are withdrawing it, we are not imposing any costs." The plea was ultimately dismissed without any liberty to make a representation.
The public interest litigation had raised concerns about the three new laws - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - stating that they had several defects and discrepancies. It also highlighted the fact that these laws were passed without any parliamentary debate, as many members were under suspension during that period. The petitioner also argued that the titles of these laws were not accurate according to the Interpretation of Statutes, and did not reflect the true purpose of the laws.
In a recent judgment, the apex court had urged the legislature to consider making necessary changes in the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which provides punishment for cruelty inflicted on a married woman by her husband and his family. The court pointed out that Sections 85 and 86 of the new penal code, which is set to come into force on July 1, were essentially the same as Section 498A of the IPC, 1860. It suggested that the issue needed to be re-examined by the legislature, taking into account the practical realities.
In conclusion, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn, without any liberty to make a representation. The court also highlighted the need for more thorough and thoughtful considerations when it comes to enacting laws, as they have a significant impact on the lives of individuals.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
