Union Home Minister Amit Shah has claimed that the government followed the “Constitutional Spirit” and “Bharatiya ethos of justice” for replacing the colonial-era laws – the Indian Evidence Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code of India – by these three new laws and their passage in the parliament, the fact is that these laws were passed without thorough discussion and in the absence of almost the entire Opposition. This was because a total of 97 Lok Sabha members of the lower House were suspended. The BJD, YSRCP, and the BSP participated because they have “good relationships” with the Modi government. There was no question of any meaningful debate. The real opposition was AIMIM and SAD (Mann). Simranjit Singh Mann of SAD(M) rightly summed up: “This is an undemocratic practice of debating these Bills because the Opposition is not even present. Secondly, they are unconstitutional again because the Opposition is not present.”

Only 35 MPs participated in the discussion of such an important issue. Out of the 35, over two-thirds were BJP members, who used the debate to sing praise of the Modi-Shah duo for bringing the Bills to replace "symbols of slavery". None cared to point out the lacunae in the three new Bills.

Passage of these Bills in such a hurry and in such a manner is ominous for Indians, for justice, because of the many lacunae including the fact that it gives absolute power to the Executive. INDIA bloc leaders have now decided in principle to explore the possibility of challenging the “loopholes” in the three legislations in the Supreme Court of India.

After the meeting, held in the residence of Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, TMC leader Sugata Ray said, “We have decided to challenge the loopholes in the laws in the Supreme Court.”

Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the new code has created two sets of anti-terror laws. "The existing UAPA and now the whole set of anti-terror provisions in the new criminal codes. The codes also leave the discretion to deputy SP-level officers to choose which anti-terror laws would be applicable in a case. No guidelines or criteria have been laid on how to pick between the two laws,” he said. “They do a similar thing with organised crime legislation. While Maharashtra has MCOCA or Rajasthan has RCOCA, the new bills again create two sets of laws.”

It should also be noted that the three laws were sent to the parliamentary panel for detailed discussion where the former Union Minister P Chidambaram had referred to the Clause 5 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita as “...retrograde as well as unconstitutional. The absolute power of the executive government to commute a sentence of death or life imprisonment, without recording reasons, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” He has also called Clause 72(3) as unconstitutional adding, “it violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court can restrict the right of the media to report the Court’s proceedings in a particular case, legislation cannot bar the media in all cases.”

Everyone is concerned about anti-terror provisions in the three new pieces of legislation. “Clause 111 refers to the offence of ‘ terrorist act’ and provides for punishment thereof. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is a comprehensive law that has stood scrutiny by Courts. It has special provisions on sanction for prosecution, burden of proof, etc. if there is need, the special law, UAPA, can be amended,” Singhvi said.

The Bills, originally introduced in August 2023 in the Lok Sabha has now gone many changes and the second bills were introduced afresh in the winter session in November 2023. However, critiques say that these would empower the government in various ways.
The Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita expands the definition of sedition to include any act that endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, or disrupt public order without requiring any incitement to violence or intention to cause public disorder. It empowers the government to suppress dissent and criticism of the government.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita gives wide powers to the police to arrest, search, and seize without a warrant, and to use force to disperse ‘unlawful’ assemblies, which may be misused by the government to target protesting citizens and intimidate and suppress opposition voices.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Samhit allows electronic or digital records such as email, server logs, smartphones, SMS, websites etc as evidence without specifying the standards of authorities, reliability and integrity of such records, which could compromise the privacy and security of the citizens leading to false and fabricated evidence.

There are many other serious issues that must have been debated thoroughly in Parliament before their passage. It is ominous for the citizens and clearly undemocratic, and it will be injustice to Indians because expecting justice from an all-powerful executive would be very difficult. (IPA Service)