Senior members of the Opposition in Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs have submitted detailed dissent notes on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 which seek to repeal the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Evidence Act. The dissent notes pertain to unprecedented provisions that extend police custody up to 90 days, bringing back the use of handcuffs against the Supreme Court’s orders besides imposition of Hindi and a mere rearranging of the provisions in the previous Codes.

These bills are purportedly aimed at overhauling the criminal justice system. After their introduction during the monsoon session, all three bills were sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs under the Chairmanship of Brij Lal, which adopted its report on (BNS) on November 6. On Monday, the report was presented in both the Houses.

Dissent notes have been given by P. Chidambaram, Adhir Ranjan Chaudhry, Ravneet Singh, Derek O’Brien, and Digvijay Singh, among others.

The most controversial provision is in Clause 187(2) and 187(3) of the BNSS on ‘Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours’. The Clause holds: “The Magistrate mauy authorise the detention of the accused person beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period extending (i) ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days where the investigation relates to any other offence.”

In their dissent notes, the MPs pointed out: “The enhancement of the period for which a detenue can be kept in custody from 15 days contrasts with the decision of the Hon’able Supreme Court in CBI-v-Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) where it was held that police custody after a period of 15 days would be impermissible. By increasing the period of detention under police custody, the new laws have left detenues exposed to the probability of threat, torture or inducement by the police…”

Clause 43(3) of the BNSS says: “The police officer may, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuffs while effecting the arrest of a person who is a habitual, repeat offender…”

The MPs pointed out that: “The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla-v-Delhi Administration (1980) has categorically held that handcuffs are an anathema on human dignity and a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

These three MPs also expressed their dissent on the exception of rape. The Bill prescribes exceptions as “sexual intercourse of sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 18 years of age is not rape.” Dissenters said martial rape being exempted is against the objective of women’s safety. It has been a long-standing demand, they added.

On sedition, Kakoli Dastidar, TMC MP, said that regarding the sedition law, the report commends rephrasing the provision while supposedly safeguarding state security. However, the law has been retained with a broader definition encompassing a wide range of actions under the pretext of endangering India’s unity and integrity. This expansion of the law provides authorities with significant discretion, she added.

Members, especially from Southern States, have raised the issue of the names of bills in Hindi. Dayanidhi Maran, AIADMK MP, alleged that the title of the Bill is in Hindi, which is violative of Article 348.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW