DMK leader R.S. Bharathi moves Madras High Court challenging three new criminal laws

DMK's R.S. Bharathi files PILs against new laws replacing Cr.P.C., IPC, and IEA, questioning constitutionality and language use.

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) organising secretary R.S. Bharathi has filed three public interest litigation (PIL) petitions in the Madras High Court with a plea to declare as unconstitutional the three new laws which have replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA) with effect from July 1 this year.

Justices S.S. Sundar and N. Senthilkumar on Friday ordered notices, returnable in four weeks, to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the State government after hearing preliminary submissions made by Senior Counsel N.R. Elango representing the PIL petitioner and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan who sought time to file a counter affidavit.

Though the public interest litigant had also taken objection to the naming of the three new criminal laws as Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam using Hindi and Sanskrit words, Justice Sundar said, even some State laws such as the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act of 1958 had used words from other languages.

However, when Mr. Elango pointed out that Article 348 of the Constitution insists that the ‘authoritative text’ of all laws must only be in English and that the title should also be considered as an authoritative text since it forms part of Section 1 of every Act, the senior judge in the Bench said, the issue would certainly require an examination by the court after filing of counter affidavit.

Justice Sundar also wondered if there was any necessity to change the names of the age old laws and shuffle the legal provisions compared to the old laws. He feared it would only create confusion and delay the process of delivery of justice. The object behind any law must be to ensure speedy justice. “Why do you need to change the names for that?” he asked the ASG.

The judge also said, normally, any amendment to a law should be made pursuant to the recommendations of the Law Commission and also after soliciting opinions of Bar associations across the country. The suggestions from the Bar must be considered seriously and not treated as a formality, he said and added a rider that his anguish should not be considered as an expression of opinion by the court at this point of time.

In his affidavit, the litigant claimed that the three new laws were enacted in undue haste and without due deliberations. He said, the Centre had got the laws passed without any meaningful discussion, when the entire opposition was boycotting the Parliament, condemning a very shocking incident of two intruders having opened tear gas canisters, when the Lok Sabha was in session in December 2023.