New Delhi: Home Minister Amit Shah-advocated three new criminal laws were passed on Wednesday by the Lok Sabha, replacing the old colonial-era laws that were continued for decades.
Replying to two days of debate on the Bills, Shah said the new criminal laws, which replace the Indian Penal Code, CrPC and Indian Evidence Act prescribes death penalty for mob lynching and terrorism.
The new laws passed by a voice vote in view of the Opposition's absence are Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill.
Shah says new bills are people-centric
The Bills were passed along with certain new amendments moved by Shah. One of the amendments gives exemption to doctors in case of death due to the medical negligence. The Bills will be now moved to the Rajya Sabha during the remainder of two last days of the winter session.
In his reply, Shah outlined the key provisions of the bills. For instance, he said the terrorism-related provisions reflect the government's policy of zero tolerance towards terrorism, highlighting that the word "terrorism" was defined for the first time under the Indian law to ensure no one uses loopholes to circumvent the judicial process.
"While the Indian Penal Code penalises works against the government, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita will only punish those who work against the nation. Such people must and will go to jail and be punished."
The proposed criminal law bills have been under scrutiny, with concerns raised previously by opposition leaders such as Adhir Ranjan Choudhary and Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who had highlighted potential violations of human rights and the inadequacy of safeguards against excesses by law enforcement agencies.
We are about to eradicate all signs of the shackles of our colonial past and of our slavery and create completely Indian criminal laws. These laws embody the spirit of the Constitution of India, which is the spirit of justice, and will fulfil another promise made by Narendra Modi," the home minister said.
BJP and allies defend bill amid criticism
The members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, however, have defended the bills, saying that while the extant British-era criminal laws were centred around punisment and deterrence. Home Minister Shah said the new Bills shift the stress to justice and reformation, keeping with the changing needs of the modern day India.
Endorsing the bills, Biju Janata Dal's Bhartruhari Mahtab reasoned during the debate on the bills, "It is imperative that our outlook is changed and that law and order is viewed outside the colonial lens."
BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, representing the Bangalore South Lok Sabha constituency, also explained that the bills are an attempt to make the citizen the centre of the criminal justice system, and not the Crown, and formed a part of a conscious effort by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The bills' focus on digitisation and information and communication technology, among other things, gained the members' approval. "This is this age of of communication and technology," said former law minister and senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad.
Prasad also hailed the provision for mandatory video recording of search and seizure procedures, saying that it will check misuses. He also highlighted the provisions of the bill allowing in absentia trial in cases where the accused have absconded.
Owing to the suspension of several opposition members, the three bills were passed by the Lok Sabha virtually unopposed. Dissenting voices were also conspicuousl absent, apart from a handful of opposition members.
Notably, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MP Asaduddin Owaisi raised concerns over the prejudice in the implementation of criminal laws against religious minorities and other vulnerable communities like Dalits and Adivasis. He also voiced his apprehensions about a provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allowing police custody beyond 15 days, pointing to potential violation of civil liberties.
Shiromani Akali Dal leader Harsimrat Kaur Badal alleged during the debate that the bills conferred powers on the police without adequate checks and balances.
