Supreme Court refuses to admit PILs against new penal laws

The court was hearing two petitions challenging the new penal laws, namely 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 earlier Evidence Act).

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

The first petition called for the establishment of an expert committee to assess and determine the feasibility of the three new penal laws. It also objected to the titles of the three laws, calling them ambiguous and inaccurate, as the names of the three laws did not say anything about the law or its reason.

This plea also highlighted that the introduction of new criminal laws can affect lawyers in different ways and bring with it a number of challenges, such as increased workload, complexity, ambiguity, the need for ongoing legal training, etc.

In the second petition, BRS leader Boinapally said the new laws were like “old wine in new bottles” and would have serious implications for law and order and the lives and freedom of the people.

He argued that all relevant stakeholders, states and union territories were not consulted while enacting these new penal laws.

The BRS Chairman had also claimed that certain provisions of the new laws could be declared unconstitutional and void – namely sections 15, 43(3), 94, 96, 107, 185, 187, 349 and 479 of the BNSS, sections 113, 152 of the BNS and section 23 of the BSA.