NEW DELHI: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been submitted to the Supreme Court by Anjali Patel and Chhaya, represented by advocates Sanjeev Malhotra and Kunwar Siddhartha, requesting the immediate formation of an expert panel to assess the viability of three new criminal laws: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023. The petition also seeks an immediate stay on their implementation, arguing that these proposed bills contain numerous defects and discrepancies. These laws are slated to come into effect on July 1.

The laws in question were passed by Parliament during the winter session in December 2023, and received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on December 25, 2023. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

Sources indicate that the PIL will likely be heard in the Supreme Court after July 8. The petitioners claim that implementing these new laws will require significant changes in court procedures, filing requirements, and evidentiary standards, necessitating lawyers to adapt to revised practices and rules of evidence.

Media reports, citing copies of the petition, state that the proposed bills were passed with irregularities. Many members of Parliament (MPs) were suspended during the voting process, resulting in limited participation and no substantial debate on the bills' contents.

One major concern with the BNSS 2023 is the provision allowing up to 15 days of police custody, which can be authorized in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the judicial custody period. The petition argues that this could lead to the denial of bail for the entire period if the police have not exhausted the 15 days of custody.

The BNSS 2023 also permits the use of handcuffs during arrests. The petitioners contend that this infringes on personal liberty, as handcuffs are to be used only for habitual or repeat offenders who have escaped custody, or individuals accused of serious offenses such as rape, acid attacks, organized crime, economic offenses, and acts threatening India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. This provision contradicts Supreme Court judgments and National Human Rights Commission guidelines, which deem the use of handcuffs inhumane, unreasonable, arbitrary, and contrary to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The plea emphasizes that, in extreme cases, reasons for using handcuffs must be recorded by the escorting authority.

Previously, on May 20, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a PIL filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari challenging the newly enacted criminal laws, criticizing the petition as being drafted in a casual manner.