Parliament panel adopts report on criminal laws

With nearly 50 amendments being suggested by the panel, top officials indicated that in the winter session, new versions of the three proposed laws will be introduced and cleared

New Delhi

HT Image

The home affairs panel of Parliament has adopted its report on three new bills that will replace the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, Code for Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, paving the way for the passage of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakhsya Sanhita in the upcoming winter session, functionaries said on Monday.

With nearly 50 amendments being suggested by the panel, top officials indicated that in the winter session, new versions of the three proposed laws will be introduced and cleared.

“With a large number of amendments recommended by the panel, the government might prefer the three new codes incorporating the amendments. It would be easier for the passage of the bills instead of bringing a long list of amendments separately,” said an official.

Several Opposition members of the panel are set to give dissent notes on the bills replacing the IPC and the CrPC but the Evidence Bill is unlikely to see any opposition. “On the Evidence Bill, the panel has accepted most of our suggestions. Our focus is on the bills replacing the IPC and the CrPC,” said a senior opposition leader (from a party other than the Congress) after the meeting of the panel on Monday.

While a number of Opposition MPs demanded more time to submit their dissent notes, DMK lawmaker NR Elango in his note said the new bills don’t have an “Indian soul”, countering the government’s claims that they were replacing colonial-era laws.

“I find no new clause that imbibes Indian thought process and the Indian soul. This bill is also not having any citizen-centric approach. I am of the view that there is no provision introduced, no new definition of the offences is given except adding or deleting some words in the existing provisions, adding new offences, which are already punishable under special enactments, enhancing the punishment of few offences without any rationale. This bill achieves nothing,” said the lawmaker in his dissent note, which will be a part of the report of the panel.

Opposition lawmakers also maintain that they will oppose the government’s plan to introduce the provisions of UAPA and clauses of other anti-terror laws in these bills. Elango’s note added that it does not make sense to ask a senior police officer to decide whether someone should be booked under UAPA or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita because this is to be decided by the court. He added that it is not clear why “punishment of several sections was increased, the reasons behind such increased punishment and the rational of it are not explained in the notes on clauses. It seems randomly punishments are increased for few offences without assigning any reason.”

The officials indicated that close to 48 amendments have been approved and in the winter session, the three bills would be introduced afresh and passed to avoid the hassles of pushing through each and every amendment.

Opposition parties will ask for removal of these bills as they claim no substantial changes from the current laws have been made in the proposed laws.

Elango and many other Opposition MPs have also demanded English names for the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakhsya Sanhita.

“It was informed that it was not a Hindi name but a Sanskrit name. It was suggested that the naming of the bill in Hindi/Sanskrit is not violating Art.348 of the Constitution of India. It was stated that though the name is in Hindi/Sanskrit it is transliterated in English. The observations of the committee that ‘the text of Sanhita is in English, it does not violate the provisions of Art.348’ is unacceptable,” said the DMK parliamentarian’s dissent note.