New Delhi: Opposition members in the parliamentary panel on the three criminal law bills, in their dissent note, termed the proposed legislation merely a “rearrangement of sections” of the existing laws and a “stunt” that will have “several undesirable consequences”. ,
Opposing renaming the laws in Sanskritised Hindi as an “insult” to non-Hindi speaking people, opposition members have also said that the bills perpetuate a “colonial spirit” and disrupt the “Indian thought process”. There is no new section to be adopted.
Apart from reshaping the law on treason, he has also pushed for excluding marital rape and including clauses like “suppression of identity” and marriage through “fraudulent means” in the new code.
The 30-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs will review three bills – the Indian Judicial Code (replacing the IPC); Indian Civil Protection Code (for CrPC) and Indian Evidence Bill (for Indian Evidence Act) – adopted their reports on 7 November. The reports, including the dissent note, were made public on Saturday.
As The Indian Express previously reported, the Center is likely to introduce three bills in the winter session of Parliament from December 4 to 22. According to sources, the Law Ministry is already working internally on the new draft which will include the significant changes suggested. This panel is being headed by BJP MP Brijlal.
Among the opposition members who submitted their dissent notes were Congress MP P.
Chidambaram called the three bills “largely copy and paste of existing laws”.
“What the bills have done is make some amendments (some acceptable, some not acceptable), rearranging sections of existing laws and merging different sections into one section with multiple sub-sections. This is a futile exercise which will have many undesirable consequences… Hundreds of thousands of judges, lawyers, police officers – and even the general public – will be put to immense trouble and inconvenience without any benefit,” his dissent note said. Has gone.
Objecting to the use of Hindi for the names of the bills, Chidambaram has cited Article 348 of the Constitution which says all acts shall be in English. “Regardless of the language of the Bill (which is English), naming the Bill only Hindi is highly objectionable, unconstitutional, an insult to non-Hindi speaking people (such as Tamil, Gujarati or Bengali) and anti-federalism.” Chidambaram said.
Noting the lack of consultation on the Bills, he said, “We strongly object to the process adopted on the grounds of inadequacy, non-inclusiveness, non-scholarship and lack of adequate time for consideration by members.” He also opposed the retention of death penalty as punishment, the continuation of adultery as a crime, the provision of solitary confinement and the inclusion of “terrorist acts” in the Indian Code of Justice (BNS).
Congress leader of the House in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, made a similar point, but took specific objection to the non-inclusion of marital rape under the sections defining rape under the BNS. He has also objected to section 69 of the BNS which deals with “sexual intercourse etc. using fraudulent means”. and explains fraudulent methods to include “marriage by concealing identity”.
According to Chaudhary, the criterion of “fraudulent means” was too broad and the phrase ‘suppression of identity’ could be “misused by uninterested parties to harass inter-religious and inter-caste couples.” He also criticized the bills for maintaining the “colonial spirit” of existing laws and increasing the “coercive powers of the state”.
The dissent notes of Ravneet Singh and Digvijay Singh are similar to Chaudhary’s.
TMC’s Derek O’Brien, besides sharing Chidambaram and Chaudhary’s concerns, noted the lack of representation of marginalized communities in the committee drafting the bills as well as the lack of consultation within the standing committee reviewing them. Also exposed.
“The urgency to conclude discussions on bills that could significantly alter our nation’s safety and law and order regulations raises concerns about the democratic and informed nature of the decision-making process,” he said, adding that adopting the report “ridicules legislative scrutiny” and is only a “stunt” before the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
In his dissent note, O’Brien’s pointed out that the sedition law has been paraphrased and retained, not abolished. “The provision in the new Bill gives it such a broad definition that it can encompass any act in the name of endangering the unity and integrity of India. It leaves a lot of room for discretion which is the opposite of what was advised by the law commission,” he said.
He has also objected to non-inclusion of trans women under rape and the provision of seven years’ imprisonment if a murder is committed by a group of more than five people on certain grounds.
While flagging a lack of consultation and expressing dismay over non-inclusion of suggestions by stakeholders, DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran’s dissent note significantly focused on “imposition of Hindi” through the Bills. It would “further change the federal relationship and structure between the Union and the State”, he said.
Maran’s party colleague and fellow MP Elango, while suggesting “the arrangement of sections” be maintained as in the existing IPC, also raised objections to “the imposition of Hindi”.
